Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Language, Philology,
and the Nation in
Nineteenth-Century Germany
TUSKA BENES
•
WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS
DETROIT
K R T K
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Xl
Introduction 1
1.
Words Alive! Constructivist Theories of Language
in Late-Enlightenment Prussia 23
2.
Urheimat Asien: German Nationhood and the "Indo-Germanic"
Language Family, 1770-1830 65
3.
Urvolk Germania: Historicizing Language and the Nation
in German Philology, 1806-72 113
4.
Urbild Hellas: Language, Classical Philology, and the
Ancient Greeks, 1806-66 159
vii
CONTENTS
5.
Comparative Linguistics: Race, Religion,
and Historical Agency, 1830-80 197
6.
Speakers and Subjectivity: Toward a Crisis
of Linguistic Historicism, 1850-1900 241
Conclusion 283
viii
Illustrations
J. G. Hamann 36
Franz Bopp 78
Julius Klaproth 85
Julius Klaproth's linguistic atlas 86
Theodor Bentey 106
Johann Andreas Schmeller 129
J. A. Schmeller's mapping of the Bavarian dialects 133
friedrich Thiersch 183
Georg Curti us 193
August Friedrich Pott 207
August Schleicher's genealogical trees 232
Heymann Steinthal 252
ix
Ac1mowledgments
xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
xii
Introduction
I
INTRODUCTION
cates grammatical idiosyncrasies, gathers commentaries, and compares
editions of ancient authors" known only for their "caprice and medi-
ocrity.,,4 Renan defended his German authors from "the terrible accu-
sation of pedantry.,,5 Philology, he insisted, was more than "simple eru-
dite curiosity." It was "an exact science of the human spirit.,,6 "The true
philologist, Renan asserted, was "at once linguist, historian, archaeolo-
gist, artist, philosopher.... Philology is not an end in itself. Its value is
as a necessary condition for the history of the human spirit.,,7 Language
study lay at the heart of humanistic inquiry for Renan; the history and
forms oflanguage had a significance beyond their mere utility in the in-
terpretation of texts.
In the nineteenth century, the field of philology encompassed var-
ied forms of biblical criticism, art history, archaeology, and literary, cul-
tural, and historical analysis, as well as the formal study of ancient lan-
guages and grammar. These pursuits were united by a critical-historical
reading of texts and by an assembly of technical methods forged by Ital-
ian humanists in the early modern period. 8 Knowledge oflanguage, in-
cluding grammar and etymology, was key to the philological enterprise,
both as a requisite for textual criticism and as a study in its own right.
Comparative and historical analysis of Semitic tongues, for example, fu-
eled Renan's criticism of the Bible. In 1848 he advanced a controver-
sial thesis regarding the origins of monotheism. The rigid structure of
Hebrew roots had supposedly curtailed the mythological imagination
of its early speakers, suggesting to Hebrews the existence of a one and
only God. For Renan, as for many of his contemporaries, each national
tongue provided insight into the cultural and intellectual proclivities of
its speakers. The history of languages likewise revealed the origins and
ethnic affiliations of their speakers, transporting scholars to the most
distant moments of the past.
Renan's grand ambitions suggest why the field of philology capti-
vated the nineteenth century. Lectures on the science of language at-
tracted large popular audiences in cities such as London, and philology
intrigued some of the period's brightest minds. 9 Renan's remarks like-
wise recall Germany's prominence in the field. "Almost all the material
work in philology is sustained ... by Germans," he noted in 1857. "The
true excellence of Germany is in the interpretation of the past .
. . . Philology ... is her creation .... The service rendered by Germany
is to have elevated an organized science to new heights ... and to have
given philosophical meaning to a pursuit once imagined as a simple ex-
2
INTRODUCTION
3
INTRODUCTION
4
--- INTRODUCTION
5
INTRODUCTION
6
INTRODUCTION
7
INTRODUCTION
8
- INTRODUCTION
9
INTRODUCTION
10
INTRODUCTION
11
INTRODUCTION
12
INTRODUCTION
13
INTRODUCTION
14
INTRODUCTION
15
INTRODUCTION
16
-- INTRODUCTION
17
INTRODUCTION
If one tangent of this study leads toward Nazi Germany, the other
resurfaces in postwar France. In 1966 the French philosopher Michel
Foucault attributed pride of place to philology in his controversial his-
tory of the human sciences. While remaining on the "fringes of our his-
torical awareness," he claimed in The Order of Tbings: An Archaeology
of the Human Sciences) philology modified the modern manner of
18
- INTRODUCTION
19
INTRODUCTION
20
INTRODUCTION
21
1
Words Alivel
Constructivist Theories of Language
in Late-Enlightenment Prussia
23
CHAPTER 1
24
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
25
CHAPTER 1
tor language into Kant's theory of the mind introduced many of the
philosophical concerns for language that have characterized the twen-
tieth century.7 Wilhelm von Humboldt was a key transitional figure
whose posthumous legacy bridged these two periods. The construc-
tivist aspects of his linguistic philosophy have their roots in the empiri-
cal tradition of French theorists, but also in the Sprachkritik that Ger-
man scholars launched against Kant's metaphysical edifice.
26
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
27
CHAPTER 1
signs the Mind makes use of ... and the right ordering of them for its
clearer Information. ,,15 His suggestion that signs played an inescapable
role in cognition inspired later eighteenth-century theorists to make
semiotics the foundation of epistemology.lo In another widely read pas-
sage, Locke speculated that the complex vocabulary of any given na-
tional tongue developed as a metaphorical expansion from an original
core of names for simple ideas of sensation. By implication, the growth
of national vocabularies over time could be interpreted as an expansion
in the store of ideas available to their respective cultural eommunities. 17
Etienne de Condillac (1715-80) translated Locke's observations
into a more rigorous analysis of how the historical growth of language
influenced the progress of knowledge, as well as the formation of na-
tions and their worldviews. The epistemological significance he and the
French ideologues placed on the evolution of particular sign systems
has led many to herald his work as the "source" of modern notions
concerning the linguistic relativity of cognition, including claims that
each national tongue generates its own worldview and accepted forms
ofknowledge. IB Condillac's Essay on the Origin of Human Understand-
ing (1746) did tie progress in knowledge to the historical development
of language, thereby eliminating Locke's lingering rationalistic faith in
humankind's a priori capacity for thought. 19 The linguistic sign, in his
view, was not a supplementary instrument created to communicate
thoughts that existed prior to language; rather, it had a constitutive role
in cognition, "the use of signs" being "the principle which unfolds all
our ideas. ,,20 Classical empiricism assigned an active role to language in
the cognitive process and for this reason has rightly been considered
one the forerunners in a constructivist theory of language. 21
Specifically, Condillac's Essay sought to explain how individual na-
tional tongues evolved historically from what he considered to be an
original language of gesture. Children abandoned on a desert island
would have relied on nature, he believed, to draw from them the first
cries and gestures. Physical responses to certain sensations, desires, and
passions, and "accidental signs" that brought to mind objects based on
contextual association, were both, according to Condillac, involuntary
products of environmental stimuli and physiological determination.
Only in a second stage of development did speakers themselves invent
the type of linguistic sign that "insensibly enlarged and improved the
operations of the mind.,,22 "Institutional" or "artificial" signs evolved
under the voluntary control of human beings and allowed them to en-
28
- CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
29
CHAPTER 1
30
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
inner spirit, just like its language, literature, laws, and mythology. In
their view, the Prussian state slavishly followed the dictates of France,
and ahsolutist rule threatened to eliminate uniquely German traditions.
Frederick the Great's vision of the enlightened state, as well as his
disdain for German language and literature, shaped the Academy of
Sciences that welcomed Maupertius. As his essay "On German Litera-
ture" (1780) suggests, the Prussian king feared his "native" tongue
lacked the clarity, polish, purity, and taste necessary to be an effective
vehicle of culture. Accordingly, he designed the academy to serve as
"the official mouthpiece of French philosophy in Germany.,,3l Its mem-
bership was predominantly foreign; publications and plenary sessions
were held in French. Frederick, moreover, used the institution to assert
his authority as an enlightened philosopher-king. The academy made
manifest notions of the hierarchical relationships linking power, knowl-
edge, and obligation that were typical of Prussian absolutism. 32 Mau-
pertuis was a willing servant, styling himself as the enlightened despot
of the academy and helping maintain the Enlightenment credentials of
the king:13
Within this context, Maupertuis investigated how the diverse sign
systems of national languages influenced the respective forms of peo-
ples' thought. Like many in the eighteenth century, he was concerned
with the relative cultural achievements of different human communities
and suggested in his Reflections on the Origin of Languages and the Sig-
nification of Words (1748) that a comparison of the languages "to
which each nation is accustomed" and their "fixing of signs ... in this
or that manner" might shed light on the way the "first human beings"
developed their knowledge. His "Dissertation on the different means
employed by men to express their ideas," read to the academy on May
13, 1756, urged German scholars to conduct empirical research on the
epistemological nexus between national tongues and cognition. 34 At his
behest one year later, the speculative-philological class of the academy
hosted the first of its famous essay competitions on the topic "What is
the reciprocal influence of the opinions of a people on the language and
of language on opinions?,,35
The academy competition dwelt primarily on the problem of how
a comparison of national tongues could highlight defects that made lan-
guage less effective as an instrument of cognition. 36 Participants were
advised to consider based on examples how "the particular opinions
held by the peoples" influenced the "many forms and bizarre expres-
31
CHAPTER I
sions there are in languages." The successful response would also show
how the preponderance of certain idioms and root words could be
"sources of particular errors or the obstacles to the acceptance of par-
ticular truths." The goal of the essay was then to conclude generally
how a "language in turn gives to the mind a more or less favorable in-
clination towards true ideas" so that "one could explore the most prac-
ticable means to remedy the short-comings of languages. ,,37 Reflection
on language was to provide solutions to philosophical problems. 38 But
the formulation of the question also suggests that the usefulness of par-
ticular sign systems could be evaluated against standards of truth that
existed outside of language. Condillac himself expected the history of
language to "uncover philosophical errors ... at their causes" so that
he might "prescribe a simple and easy procedure to attain certain
knowledge" of the metaphysical world.'w
The G6ttingen theologian and Orientalist Johann David
Michaelis (1717-91) submitted the winning essay. His Dissertation on
the InjluCrtce of Opinions on Language, and of Language on Opinions
(1759) explored what contributed to the relative "perfection, or imper-
fection of the languages of certain nations," situating their particular
characteristics in relation to the "degrees of genius, understanding, and
knowledge" that could be achieved by these peoples:o Michaelis took
an anecdotal approach to the question, first citing cases where the in-
fluence of a people's opinions had impacted language. According to the
biblical philologist, language had all the benefits and perils of a
"democracy" where "use or custom is the supreme law." Nobody con-
trolled the "immense heap of truths and errors of which the languages
ofthe nations are the repositories," so the ideas of scholarly authorities
often mixed with the knowledge of ordinary people. 4l This need not be
disadvantageous. For example, the persistence of local names for plants
among speakers of dialect could assist the learned botanist in his classi-
fications. The remainder of the essay outlined those attributes that con-
tributed to the relative "richness or poverty of a language." Michaelis
showed how a "copiousness of terms and fecundity of etymologies and
expressions" could further the advance of science by "preventing many
errors and altercations about words. ,,42 Equivocation, on the other
hand, spread the "kind of mist" that prevented a name from being
"fully expressive of its object. ,,4.1
The expectation of advancing knowledge by perfecting language
suggests the extent that Michaelis believed words could be tools of an
32
- CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
33
CHAPTER 1
cesses of the human soul,,48 and illuminated the conditions under which
the very standards for evaluating knowledge were constructed.
The two theologians who came to stand as patrons of the German na-
tionalist movement both rejected the Enlightenment project of Freder-
ick the Great, as well as the related religious assumptions behind
Michaelis's view of language. In the 1760s and 1770s, J. G. Hamann
and J. G. Herder reconceived the relationship between individual lan-
guages, reason, and national culture based on the supposed role of "the
word" in God's revelation to man. Responding to Michaelis's Disserta-
tion, the pair declared nationality to be the result of linguistic diversity.
They dismissed his instrumentalist view that language was a perfectible
instrument under a person's rational control. Words, in their view, were
not pliable tools, but active and autonomous subjects that helped forge
culture and community. Hamann and Herder imagined national
tongues to be living beings with their own laws of historical develop-
ment. Languages embodied the creative power of God's word and sup-
ported more meaningful communities than those modeled on the En-
lightened rational state. Reason, Hamann and Herder insisted, was the
variable product of contingent linguistic structures, so too should be
the political life of the nation.
Frederick the Great and his coterie of French philosophers were
among the chief targets of Hamann's attack on the Berlin Enlighten-
ment. 49 This animosity had both personal and intellectual roots.
Hamann spent twenty years of his life employed as a clerk in the king's
General Excise and Customs Administration, a government bureau
adapted from French models. Charged with translating documents
from French to German, he resented the foreign taxation practices as a
constant reminder of German cultural subservience. In his polemic "To
the Solomon of Prussia" (1772), Hamann demanded the king rid his
realm of the foreigners who dominated the academy and recognize the
genius of native sons. Like Solomon, Frederick was guilty of whoring
after foreign gods, and Hamann urged him to break with his rationalis-
tic favorites at the court. 50 For Hamann, an Enlightenment-rationalistic
view of language corresponded with an overly abstract and disembod-
ied notion of community.
Hamann's own theory of language emerged as fragments in re-
views published in the Crusades of a Philologist (1761). Several of these
34
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
35
The portrait J. G. Hamann left to his parents upon leaving K6nigsberg to
serve the Cunily or Baroness von Budberg in 1752. The informal checkered
scarf covered the hair loss he suffered following a childhood illness; in public
settings Hamann preferred a wig. From Volkmar Hansen, ed. Johann Geot:.fJ
Hal1'lam'l, 1730-1788 (Diisseldorf: Goethe Museum, 2001).
(Courtesy Goethe Museum DUsseldorf)
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
37
CHAPTER 1
38
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
39
CHAPTER 1
40
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
41
CHAPTER 1
42
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
rational truth, clear, distinct, and necessary, and not a leap of faith. But
hc feared Herder had wrongly asserted that human reflection had in-
vented language in complete autonomy and in so doing denied the cre-
ative power of God. Herder himself insisted that the prospect that man
invented language "reveal[ ed] God in the light of a higher day: his
work is a human soul which itself creates and continues to create its
own language because it is his work, because it is a human soul. ,,82 An
ordained Protestant minister at the court of Biickeburg and then
Weimar, he expected to "implant in the hearts of men the word that
can make souls holy."s3 Herder's theory oflanguage showed God work-
ing within the human mind; as Arnd Bohm has suggested, he extended
Adam's responsibility as a name-giver to mankind in general. H4 Signifi-
cantly, Herder did not understand language as a mechanism of sociabil-
ity;~S the word emerged in an act of inwardness, of the soul expressing
it~ essential human creativity.R6 Condillac's origin theory presumed a
communicative event between two isolated children. For Herder, the
"soul [of man] bleated in its interior as it were"; "the wild, lonely man
in the forest would have had to have invented language for himself,
cven if he had never spoken. ,,87
Herder's focus on the human act of linguistic signification had
implications both for both ethnological study and for a new under-
standing of subjectivity. Language, on the one hand, was the privileged
medium through which individuals and communities defined them-
selves. The mother tongue was inextricably linked to the "custom,
character, and origin of the people" that spoke it. 88 On the other hand,
as Charles Taylor has suggested, the possession of a representative con-
sciousness implied that human activity could no longer be seen as the
embodiment of an ideal external order or of a plan fixed independently
of the subject, but only as the expression of a freely self-unfolding life
ti:>rce or soul. Herder assumed all living beings to be unified by an in-
nate inner essence; their highest goal was attaining the full self-realiza-
tion of this idea through history.89
Theories of language were critical to the historical consciousness
that developed in the late eighteenth century, and it was language that
offered Herde'r a model of organic growth and decay. In 1767 he pro-
posed that each national tongue possessed "its own laws of change,,;90
these revealed a language's "origin, history, and the true nature of its
uniqueness. ,,91 Like other organic beings, languages traversed three de-
velopmental stages comparable to childhood, youth, and old age. These
43
CHAPTER 1
phases marked "the circular course of all things," and Herder suggested
that language developed from "monosyllabic, rough, high tones,"
through a musical period of poetry and sensual imagery, to a masculine
and grammatical age of philosophy and prose.92 In his view, individuals
and nations were also organisms with a higher purpose; their develop-
ment was "genetic and organic" like that of language itselC 3
The notion that language followed its own internal model of de-
velopment implied that language itself could be an agent of historical
transformation, an independent force that helped determine the charac-
ter of a people, as well as how it exercised its powers of reason and re-
flection. Specifically, Herder imagined each national language (Nat-
ionalsprache) to be the "preserve" or "receptacle" for the "entire collec-
tion of a people's thoughts. ,,94 Through the centuries, each generation
of speakers had borrowed and selected its defining ideas from the na-
tional treasure trove, altered them, and deposited new and refined tra-
ditions back into the mother tongue. The store of linguistic forms re-
ceived by a community determined how its life force was expressed so
that in language, not only was the "reason of a nation" but also "its
character imprinted.,,9s It was an illusion, Herder asserted, that man
"had become all that he was by himself." The specific forms of a nation's
linguistic expression were in the moment of their articulation always
conditioned by a historical trajectory governed by the life force oflan-
guage itself. Linguistic development took place within a historical com-
munity, and despite the subject'S capacity for free self-expression, the ar-
ticulation of the person's humanity was shaped by an extended "spiritual
genesis formed by his education, parents, teachers, friends, ... by his
Volk and its fathers, ultimately by the entire chain of humanity. ,,96
In subsequent works, Herder returned to the implications the or-
ganic growth of diverse languages had for the universality of reason and
the formation of nationhood. National tongues marked for him "the
beginning of reason and culture," and the historically contingent ori-
gins of their systems of signification undermined universalistic notions
of truth. In his Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind
(1785-87) Herder thus argued that no deeper metaphorical or essen-
tial relationship tied an object to the "arbitrary, completely immaterial
sounds" with which it was represented in the soul. There was no "sub-
stantial connection between language and the thought" it designated. 97
This had the result that "the spirit of words and their art of abstraction
is the most diverse among nations.,,98 Linguistic diversity was also the
44
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
--
basis 011 which Herder argued that "the landscape of nations has ...
endless gradations of color.,,99 His belief in the pluralism and incom-
mensurability of cultural values and societies rested in the differences
separating national tongues. Language determined the character of a
n~ltion and was the organic force that guided its development from ori-
gins to old age. "He who was raised in a language," Herder wrote in
1795, "and learned to pour out his heart in her, express his soul in her,
he belongs to the people [Volk] of this language ... a nation is built and
,,100
reare d l)y means 0 fl anguagc.
This claim enabled philologists to place language studies at the
core of research into the formation of culture and community. In the
Fral/ments, Herder outlined an ambitious philological project on which
nineteenth-century scholars with better understandings of grammar and
etymology later embarked. He remarked on the difficult yet rewarding
task of a "national philologist" who interpreted the history of words
themselves for its greatest possible ramifications. lUI A true language
scholar, Herder suggested, would be "a man of three heads" who com-
bined philosophy, history, and philology. "Like a stranger," he would
"wander through peoples and nations and learn foreign tongues and
languages, so that he might speak intelligently about his own.,,102 In the
Ideas, Herder again raised the expectation that comparative philologists
complete a massive ethnographic project of mapping human communi-
ties. Language was the "means to develop the humanity of our species."
Therefore, "a comparison of different cultivated languages with the dif-
krent revolutions of their peoples would reveal ... a changing land-
scape of the manifold development of the human spirit." 103
At the end of the eighteenth century, the philologists of the na-
lion-most with classical training-still lacked the technical skills and
linguistic materials necessary to complete what Herder envisioned as a
"general physiognomy of nations based on their languages. ,,104 General
theories on the origin of language were highly speculative in the ab-
sence of adequate data from actual languages, and despite the broad
historical orientation of eighteenth-century linguistics, methods for es-
tablishing gene.alogical relations among languages were largely defi-
cient. Most research concentrated on the historical connections be-
tween the vocabularies and grammatical structures of Latin and the
Romance languages, but even here etymological evidence of lexical
similarities was often obscured by a rigid classification oflanguages into
syntactic types. lOS Eighteenth-century comparativists had compiled
45
CHAPTER 1
46
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
47
CHAPTER 1
48
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
charges of atheism in the same year; it was widely read and debated
among the early German Romantics.
Especially in the second section titled "Reason and Language,"
Herder argued that a critique of language, "the organon of our rea-
son," was the only legitimate foundation tor philosophy. He tried to
shift the focus of Kant's project from defining reason in the realm of
pure thought, which existed independently of linguistic expression, to
the realm of language. Kant, in his view, had failed to show "how we
arrive a priori at such concepts. ,,116 The only acceptable critique of cog-
nition was for Herder "Sprachkritik"-a study of language that ana-
lyzed the conceptual resources available in natural tongues. "Meta-
physics," he insisted, must "become a philosophy of human language.
What an immense field! How much is there yet in it to observe, order,
sow, and harvest! ... it is the true critique of pure reason as well as of
the imagination; it alone contains the criteria for the senses and for the
understanding."ll? Like Hamann, Herder opposed developing distinct
or specialized philosophical languages that claimed to rise above the
language of experience. The grounds for the possibility of any philo-
sophical discourse were already present in conventional language.
Herder insisted more adamantly on the radically historical nature of
language than either Hamann or Salomon Maimon. For him, the pos-
sibilities for cognition were historically and culturally relative to the
evolution of natural languages through time. IIB
Early supporters of Kant found more affirming ways of integrat-
ing language into transcendental philosophy, arguing that he raised an
intriguing set of new linguistic concerns. As Pietro Perconti has sug-
gested, Kant stood on the threshold of a theory of language in that he
reflected on the prelinguistic conditions that make linguistic meaning
possible. To the extent that Kant contributed to a new theory of men-
tal representation, he opened a space for his followers to discuss the for-
mative role of symbolic systems in such tasks as recognizing objects and
using empirical concepts. 119 Within the first post- Kantian generation
there were a number of language theorists who deliberated on the role
of words and grammatical structures within their mentor's theory of
mental representation. Karl Leonard Reinhold (1758-1823), Georg
Michael Roth (1769-1817), and August Ferdinand Bernhardi
(1769-1820) interpreted language as the external presentation
(J)arstellung) of internal representations (Vorstellungen) by articulate
49
CHAPTER 1
50
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
(Ursprache) from gestures and natural signs into arbitrary signs and
complex forms of grammar and syntax, only he argued that all hypothe-
ses regarding the origin of language had to be based on an ideal prin-
ciple if they were to be considered valid. "One cannot rely," he ex-
plained "on the arbitrary suggestion of special circumstances under
whieh a language might perhaps have arisen .... One cannot content
himself with showing that and how a language could have been in-
vented; rather, one must deduce the necessity of this invention from
the nature of human reason: One must show that and how language
must have been invented. ,,124 Fichte transformed the natural history of
bnguage into what he called "an a priori history of language" that
traced the unfolding of the;: "idea of language" as such. The nature of
the original language must be deduced from "a principle that itself lies
in the nature of man "-humanity's rational capacity for speech.lls The
majority ofFichte's own essay was dedicated to explaining how the Ur-
jprache as idea evolved into historical human speech and assumed gram-
matical form.
Idealist scholars among the German Romantics tended to regard
language as a timeless reflection of rational structures. They radically
dehistoricized the question of the origin of language and tried to show
the necessity of, and to justifY linguistic forms based on, transcenden-
tal categories. 126 In his Philosophy of Art (1802), for example, F. W. J.
Schelling explained the genesis of language by the intrinsic necessity
that drives the idea to provide itself with a body in which to fulfill it-
self; historical tongues were a manifestation of the idea of language in
the real. Being of an ideal essence, language had to be considered an
spontaneous, autonomous organism, which most closely resembled its
underlying idea in its earliest forms. 127 The notion that language existed
first as an idea reversed the notion that primitive man was a beast driven
by his needs and passions to substitute abstract signs for grunts. The
Romantics believed language degenerated from a state of perfection; a
divine force spontaneously bestowed upon humans the rational capac-
ity for language and with it the conditions of their humanity.
fichte's notion of the "idea of language" endowed words with a
new type of constructive power, one the Romantics associated less with
cognition than with the aesthetic forms of human culture. As James
Starn has observed, Fichte seemed to imply that "language lives and
acts by its own independent rules and dynamics, almost as though lan-
guage would exist even if there were no speakers of it. ,,12~ At the turn
51
CHAPTER 1
52
-T list
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
53
CHAPTER 1
Wilhelm von Humboldt took active part in the early Romantic reaction
to Kant, translating the philosophical concerns of his followers into a
concrete and influential research agenda for language scholars. Reason,
for Humboldt, may have been a spontaneous product of the creative
mind, but it was also conditioned by the organic, historical develop-
ment of particular national tongues. His attempt to reconcile these two
positions produced empirical analyses of the relative effectiveness with
which historical languages fostered mental activity. Humboldt's work is
often recognized as the forerunner of the so-called linguistic relativity
thesis. This phrase is taken frum the work of two twentieth-century
American linguists, Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf,
who argued that the words, grammatical structures, and habitual lan-
guage practices associated with individual national tongues condition
the worldview of their speakers.140 The constructivist aspects of Hum-
boldt's linguistic philosophy fall just as much within the tradition of
German idealism, as they emanate from the legacy of French thought.
Therefore, it is misleading to assume that nineteenth-century German
linguists excluded issues relating national tongues to the mind and rep-
54
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
55
CHAPTER 1
56
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
57
CHAPTER 1
58
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
59
CHAPTER 1
60
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
61
CHAPTER 1
62
CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORIES OF LANGUAGE
63
2
Urheim6f Rsien
German Nationhood and the "Indo-Germanic"
Language Familq, 1770-1830
65
CHAPTER 2
66
URHElMAT ASlEN
Since the writing of the Old Testament and in all the Jewish, Christian,
and Muslim traditions that drew on this source, language has been in-
terpreted as an indication of the genealogical relations among human
communities. Genesis suggests that Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham,
and Japheth, were responsible for spreading the diverse national
tongues across the globe, and for centuries researchers tried to align ex-
isting languages and peoples with biblical figures. Medieval scholars,
for example, compiled lists of thc supposed seventy-two world lan-
guages and aligned them with the seventy-two descendents of Noah's
sons named in Genesis. 5 Thomas Trautmann has aptly described this
tradition of classifYing nations and peoples based on the book of Gen-
esis as "Mosaic ethnology,,,6 and it is within this Christian context that
the German relationship to the East was viewed in the late eighteenth
century. The descriptive study of human communities was tied espe-
cially in this period to the legacy of Georg Wilhelm Leibniz
(1646-1716) and authors of universal history (Universalgeschichte).7
Writing in the political chaos that followed the Thirty Years War,
Leibniz recognized the central role of linguistic homogeneity in the
formation of nations and was a chief advocate of strengthening the
"teutsche Nation" through devotion to the vernacular. As the founder
and first president of the learned society that evolved into the Prussian
Academy of Sciences, Leibniz proposed compiling a comprehensive
67
CHAPTER 2
68
URHEIMAT ASIEN
view of language that might have enabled him to turn his essentially
static or Linnaean system of northern peoples into a historicizing nar-
rative of common descent. As soon as he integrated linguistic commu-
nities into larger historical continuities, Schlozer ceased to regard them
on their own terms, characterizing peoples solely based on their posi-
tion within the progress and development of "the human species" in its
totality.13 Although he longed to reconstruct a genealogy of peoples
that led from Adam and the Old Testament to the current inhabitants
of the north, Schlozer feared that the necessary "middle links" between
languages spoken by followers of Noah's sons and his own subjects
could never be recovered. 14 Until the nineteenth century, etymology
was largely a speculative science. Comparativists lacked adequate tools
for bridging the historical distance between recorded languages and
those prehistoric tongues alluded to in the Jewish Bible.
Nevertheless, Europeans speculated on the likely location of the
Carden of Eden. The philosophical cultural histories oflate Enlighten-
ment scholars such as J. G. Herder presumed central Asia, specifically
the region around Kashmir, to be the cradle of humanity and by exten-
sion the ultimate point of origin of all Europeans. ls The German con-
nection to central Asia could not be confirmed by concrete historical or
linguistic evidence, however. In the late eighteenth century, genealo-
gies of language aimed primarily at identifYing the relative progress
with which individual idioms allowed for the exercise of reason and not
at reconstructing the history of human communities. lo Even those
scholars with a historical interest in language, such as the preeminent
German comparativist Johann Christoph Adelung (1732-1806), had
to conclude that "Noah's ark is a sealed bastion, and the ruins of Baby-
Ion lie still before me."l? The gap between languages of historical
record and the time of Babel was impassable without methods for re-
constructing prehistoric linguistic states. Late eighteenth-century com-
parativists could only trace the actual ancestry of modern Germans as
far east and "back in time" as Iran.
As the lingua franca of south and central Asia and the language in
which East India Company officials were trained, Farsi was well known
to European scholars, and its connections to German were readily ap-
parcnt. IH Scholars intrigued by possible German ties to the East thus fo-
cused on the similarities between their mother tongue and Farsi, draw-
ing on a tradition of language comparison that dated to the sixteenth
century and relied primarily on lexical items. 19 Similar sounding words
69
CHAPTER 2
70
URHEIMAT ASIEN
Bengal, Jones observed that Sanskrit bore to Greek and Latin "a
stronger affinity both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar,
than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed
that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing
them to have sprung from some common source.,,24 These words inau-
gurated modern scientific philological discourse. Jones demonstrated
the greater reliability of grammatical rather than lexical comparisons
and identified most major branches of what became known as the Indo-
European language family; he also suspected the existence of a common
mother tongue, more ancient than Sanskrit itselt~ which has now been
reconstructed as Proto-Indo- European.
In its eighteenth-century form, however, the Indo-European the-
sis was little more than an attempt to practice Mosaic ethnology. Jones
was reluctant to consider himself a linguist per se and never questioned
the premodern assumption that language was a perfectible instrument
of knowledge and not an object of study itself. His comparisons were
intended to show the common origin of what was believed to be the
tlve main Asian nations (Persia, Chaldea, Turkey, India, and China) and
ultimately to recover the lost common language of Noah and Adam.
For this reason he included the unrelated languages of Egypt, China,
Japan, Java, and Myanmar, as well as those of the Incas and Aztecs, in
the same family as Sanskrit. Indeed, it was the possibility raised by the
mythologist Jacob Byrant that Greeks and Indians were related to
Egyptians as common descendents of Ham (not Japheth) that allowed
Jones to see ties across the family. He never intended to separate Indo-
European and Semitic languages and only inadvertently discovered that
Sanskrit bore no resemblances in words or structures to Arabic. 25 Nev-
ertheless, Jones's approach to etymology and historical grammar
opened a new avenue for reconstructing the early history of languages
and peoples that could theoretically reach back to Babel while challeng-
ing the genealogical table of the Pentateuch on purely linguistic au-
thority.
71
CHAPTER 2
72
URHEIMAT ASIEN
73
CHAPTER 2
74
URHEIMAT ASIEN
German could all be "derived from Indic and understood based on her
composition." He based this assumption initially on the affinity of root
words common to them all, such as the names for mother, father,
brother, and sister, but extended his analysis into their "innermost
structure and grammar," suggesting that "comparative grammar"
promised new insights into the genealogy of languages. 42 Schlegel dis-
cerned that the above idioms followed a similar "structural law" ac-
cording to which grammatical relationships were expressed within a
sentence. He detected in all "a shared principle by which all relation-
ships and subtleties of meaning are signified not by appended particles
or helping verbs, but rather by inflection, that is by modification to the
root." In other words, those languages that derived from Sanskrit were
united by their common use of changes to the roots of words to sig-
nifY grammatical functions such as number or tense. In his analysis,
Sanskrit and its cognates were "organic" and flexional; the root was a
"Jiving seed" that expressed its grammatical function through "inner
change. ,,4.,
The conglomeration of languages to which Schlegel attributed
Indian origins was set apart from a more varied second group, includ-
ing Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, and American Indian languages, that had
a "diametrically opposed grammar." He characterized these lesser
tongues as "mechanical" rather than "organic" because they made use
"only of affixa rather than inflection" and expressed grammatical rela-
tionships with the help of an "added word. ,,44 Schlegel denied that in-
tlectional forms could have been obtained by affixing previously inde-
pendent words; thus these types were radically incommensurate. This
second group supposedly evolved from the languages of primitive "na-
tives" (Urbewohner) who lived in areas outside of India and had not
been privileged by the word of God, developing their speech instead
from simple cries and sounds found in nature. These "wilder peoples,"
in his view, tended to be "isolated" and "uncultivated" and had con-
tributed little to the "moral development" of humanity.45
In his Lectures on Universal History (1805-6), Schlegel had based
this hierarchical distinction on a polygenetic view of human origins;
only the "honorable" and "cultured" nations of Asia and Europe were
said to have their roots in India. 46 Having resolved to convert to
Catholicism while writing his 1808 essay on India, Schlegel later asso-
ciated this division of humanity with the biblical story of Cain and
Abel. 47 Explaining human "degeneration" through the metaphor of a
75
CHAPTER 2
76
UR HElMA T ASlEN
77
Franz Bopp, professor of general linguistics and Orient,ll literature in Berlin,
demurely displaying the Order Pour Ie Merite for Seimces and Arts
that King Friedrich Wilhelm IV bestowed upon him in 1842
as a member of the fIrst civilian class.
URHEIMAT ASIEN
79
CHAPTER 2
pIe, the past tense "ate" is formed or inflected by a change in the ini-
tial vowel of the stem; the third person singular, indicative, present
tense ("eats") is formed by appending the inflection "-s" to the stem.64
Bopp discovered that "as in the conjugation of ancient Indic verbs,"
the grammatical relationships in all related languages "are expressed
through corresponding modifications to the roots. ,,65 Without detailing
these modifications, suffice it to say that the success of his comparative
method derived in part from the frequency and precision of the agree-
ment among Indo- European languages in the particulars of their mor-
phology.M
Bopp's ability to convince contemporaries of the basic structural
identity ofIndo- European languages was also a result of his not follow-
ing the Indic grammatical tradition in his treatment of Sanskrit. He dis-
associated what he saw as the essential structure of the language from
the system presented in native and missionary grammars he encoun-
tered in Paris."? The structure of Sanskrit could only be made visible, in
his mind, by transferring to it the apparatus of Greek grammar. This
move made Bopp's work accessible to a broad range of European-
trained scholars. The fact that his study drew exclusively on two English
grammars of Sanskrit and he neglected to conduct independent re-
search in ancient texts was later criticized by a rival school of more
philologically traditional Indologists in Bonn who branded Bopp "a
Grimm without Ulphilas. ,,68 Bopp's lack of formal university training
generally made him a ready target for colleagues who feared Oriental
studies would not earn adequate recognition within the neohumanist
universities.
In 1816, Bopp unsuccessfully sought academic employment in
Bavaria. Crown Prince Ludwig instead bestowed five hundred gulden
on him for a research trip to London, where Bopp became acquainted
with Sir Charles Wilkins and H. T. Colcbrooke. Bopp also met and gave
Sanskrit lessons to Wilhelm von Humboldt, who was then Prussian am-
bassador to the court of Saint James. During this time, Bopp continued
to publish critical editions and Latin translations of episodes from the
Mahabharata, including Nala and Damayanti (1819). He also pub-
lished an "Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and
Teutonic Languages" in the Annals of Oriental Literature (1820),
which extended to all parts of grammar what his first book had done to
the verb alone. As Peter K. J. Park has shown, this essay marks a grad-
ual distancing of Bopp from both Schlegel's scholarly precepts and his
80
URHEIMAT ASIEN
81
CHAPTER 2
82
URHEIMAT ASIEN
--
ot
· radical consonants, as the only inflectional form originally found in
Indo-European roots.
83
83
CHAPTER 2
84
URHEIMAT ASIEN
85
.\SL\
I'O.L )"GLOTT.\
.J. JO:),.\'PItOTD
,112:; .
(, S
<I-
87
CHAPTER 2
Starting in the 1820s, German Orientalists set out to scour the border-
lands of the Russian Empire for evidence of an Indo-Germanic
Urheimat. The Caucasus Mountains and beyond them central Asia be-
came the focus of intensive German fieldwork sponsored by the Rus-
sian Academy of Sciences, which had a strategic interest in mapping the
linguistic and ethnographic landscape of the Empire's borderlands.
German Orientalists flocked to the Russian Empire, enticed by the pos-
sibility of a salary and by the prospect of tracing the westward path
taken by Indo-Germans. Scholars such as Christian Martin Frahn,
Bernhard Dorn, Issac Jacob Schmidt, and Julius Klaproth struggled to
sort out the linguistic affiliations of the Caucasian tribes and the no-
madic peoples of the central Asian steppes, debating which aspects of
their speech were Turkish and which Indo-European. 9S In the process,
the Indo-Germanic language family was defined in reference to linguis-
tic groups on its eastern borders. Scholars also began to see a correla-
tion between language and the likely physical characteristics of ethnic
groups.
Traveling to Russia was a wise career choice given the obstacles
hindering the pursuit of Oriental studies in the German states in the
early nineteenth century. Colonial powers such as England and France
were far better equipped to stock their national libraries with
manuscript collections and rare reference works. In 1837 the Arabist
and scholar of Hebrew Heinrich Ewald regretted that Germany still
suffered from a "dismal lack of material and resources.,,96 Aspiring Ger-
88
URHEIMAT ASIEN
89
CHAPTER 2
service by the cultural spoils of its wars. Frahn had studied theology and
Oriental languages in Rostock, where he habilitated in 1806 under O.
G. Tychsen with an interpretation of the prophet Nahum. Here he also
held lectures on Arabic grammar and numismatics. In 1807 Frahn ac-
cepted one of the first Russian professorships of Oriental literature in
Kasan with title of privy councilor. The Arabist applied his talents to
writing early histories of Russia and the eastern Arabic empire. After
Tychsen's death in 1817, Frahn was offered the open post in Rostock,
which he intended to accept. But en route to Germany he stopped in
Saint Petersburg to catalogue coins in possession of the Russian
Academy of Science and remained indefinitely. The Russian emperor
named Frahn a member of the academy and its head librarian; Frahn
also became the director of the affiliated Asian Museum and an hon-
orary librarian of the royal collection. For German scholars interested
in the linguistic history of Asia, Russian colonial activity produced a
wealth of source material. In the words of C. M. Frahn, "Their last
campaigns against the Persians and Turks were once again honored by
a series of conquests in the realm of science; their generals not only
brought back guns and enemy flags as trophies of their brilliant victo-
ries, but also entire libraries of manuscripts; and as before our religious
mission in Peking and our traveling scholars have using peaceful means
acquired immense quantities of precious Chinese and Mongolian liter-
ary works."lol The German states could offer no such advantages to
their fledgling Orientalists. 102
Frahn brought other German Orientalists to Russia, including
Bernhard Dorn (1805-81), who had a specific interest in Indo- Euro-
pean tongues. After receiving degrees in theology and philology in Sax-
ony, the native Bavarian spent several years perusing Iranian
manuscripts in London. In 1827 his research led him to conclude that
German and Farsi were like two rivers in which "One blood flows";
they either "pour forth from a common source, that is, were originally
one, or they mutually arise and receive their life from rivers that stem
from this original source. "Im These similarities convinced Dorn, as they
did Klaproth, that the Caucasus "held in the midst of their arms a peo-
ple in whom perhaps the same blood flows as in US.,,104 Dorn accepted
a position as professor of Oriental languages at the University of
Kharkov in 1829, building a career in Russia that was dedicated to
studying Farsi, the Pashto dialect of Mghanistan, and Caucasian
tongues. I05 In 1835 he joined the Institute for Oriental Languages es-
90
URHEIMAT ASIEN
91
CHAPTER 2
ther Russian trade and industry by documenting the customs and tra-
ditions of their neighbors. III Schmidt was also intrigued by the origins
of the tribal migrations that had reshaped the ethnic landscape of Eu-
rope in the early medieval period. "Such national movements that were
aroused in inner Asia without a doubt extended their influence deep
into Europe long before our time period and probably populated our
part of the earth," he explained in 1824, "but we know neither the an-
cient history of the same nor of the largest part of Asia; really we know
the history of the tribal migrations of the fourth century alone in their
effects, not in their cause.,,112
Born the son of a salesman in Amsterdam, I. J. Schmidt received
his only formal education from the Moravian Brethren in Neuwied be-
tween 1785 and 1791. When his father was compelled for financial rea-
sons to take a post as a civil servant in Java in 1798, the nineteen-year-
old Schmidt was sent to Sarepta on the Volga River to fill a post in the
trade business of the Brethren. In neighboring regions Schmidt learned
Kalmyk, a Mongolian language spoken by Buddhists in the region of
Dzungaria. From 1804 to 1806 he resided with various nomadic tribes,
learning their languages and customs, and traveled across the steppes
stretching between the Volga, the Don, and the Caucasus mountains.
Schmidt remained in Russia working in the trade offices of the Mora-
vian Brethren in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. As the head of the Rus-
sian Bible Society he translated the New Testament and other religious
works into Kalmyk and Mongolian; in 1843 he published the first Ti-
betan book in Europe, The Wise Man and the Fool, in the original lan-
guage and in German translation. The University of Rostock bestowed
a doctorate on him in 1827 and Schmidt was eventually accepted into
the Saint Petersburg Academy of Science before he went blind in 1842.
Schmidt's research was concerned with establishing the nature of
the cultural connections between ancient India, China, and the moun-
tainous regions that lay between them. Like Wilhelm von Humboldt,
who researched the languages of southeast Asia, Schmidt was intrigued
by the spread of Sanskrit forms. He likely came to Mongolian and Ti-
betan in an effort to learn more about the religious teachings of ancient
India. According to Schmidt, "the central Asian people, the true
guardians" had preserved aspects of otherwise extinct "ancient reli-
gious teachings" that had once been widespread in "Hindustan.',113
Schmidt and the few German Sinologists of the period believed that
92
URHEIMAT ASIEN
93
CHAPTER 2
trict of Canton ... ,one of whom worked as a cook, both of whom had
forced themselves on a prospector in order to show themselves for
money like wild animals in Europe.,,118
The negative associations with the study of Chinese in Germany
suggest that the German national identification with the East, while it
extended to the central Asian peoples who had supposedly sparked the
tribal migrations, broke down at the Chinese border. Not being an in-
flectional language, Chinese was not so amenable to the techniques of
comparative-historical philology as Indo-European tongues and was
quickly stigmatized as a primitive, underdeveloped language. Friedrich
Schlegel believed Chinese to be of the lowest rank in the hierarchy of
affixionallanguages;119 Jacob Grimm thought primordial speech would
have resembled Chinese-more advanced tongues developed inflec-
tions and richer syntax;120 Wilhelm von Humboldt counted Chinese
among the "less perfected languages," the one most distinct from San-
skrit.12l C. F. Neumann feared that Chinese speakers had never reached
a crucial third stage in evolution of writing; they "never ... broke
down or dissolved the word into its simplest elements; they never pro-
gressed to the most perfect medium of representation, to the letter al-
t ,,122
p h a b e.
Nevertheless, when C. M. Frahn invited the Sinologist Wilhelm
Schott to accept a position at the university of Saint Petersburg in
1840, he opted to remain in Berlin. Schott's decision reflects both the
development of Oriental studies in Germany and the limits of Russia's
scholarly attractions. In the early 1820s, Schott had hoped to train in
Paris under the Sinologist Jean Pierre Abel Remusat (1788-1832). Fi-
nancial considerations compelled him to restrict his travels to Berlin,
where he was hired to catalogue Chinese books at the royal library. In
1838 Schott was made professor of Chinese, Tartar, and east Asian lan-
guages and no longer felt a compunction to venture abroad. By mid-
century newly acquired reference materials and library collections had
made language acquisition less laborious for German Orientalists; pub-
lishers in Bonn, Berlin, and Munich had come into possession of the
Sanskrit type necessary to print aHordable editions of Indian works. 123
(German scholars active in central Asia found it "absolutely necessary"
to publish in Germany due, in Klaproth's words, to the "difficulty of
circulating a book published in Russia in the rest of the world."t 4 The
technical acumen of the comparative-historical techniques inaugurated
94
URHEIMAT ASIEN
95
CHAPTER 2
96
URHEIMAT ASIEN
97
CHAPTER 2
98
URHEIMAT ASIEN
the early monarchy were more than a fantasy of the post-exilic period. 146
For the duration of the nineteenth century, there was residual re-
sistance to philological attempts to historicize and contextualize the
Old Testament based on language. Ewald's most prominent student,
tor example, Julius Wellhausen, declared that his mentor long pre-
\'ellted the correct insight into the development of Israelite history
tj'om taking hold. 147 An analysis of how philology, as an interpretive
practice, shaped Protestant biblical criticism in the nineteenth century
is beyond the scope of this study; most exegetes were not linguists, and
their arguments revolve around the use, not the history, of language.
But language scholars provided the tools necessary for theologians to
date scripture and discuss authorship. The synoptic gospel debate,
sparked by Christian Hermann Weisse's The Gospel History Critically
and Philosophically Treated (1838) is a case in point. Theologians had
long had difficulty explaining textual similarities and differences among
the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. The dating of language en-
abled Weisse to argue that the Gospel of Mark was an earlier source
upon which Matthew and Luke had built, along with a lost collection
of Jesus's sayings. For decades, Weisse stood isolated against the ac-
cepted Tiibingen school, which favored the Griesbach hypothesis; its
notion that Mark was a synthesis of Matthew and the later Luke was
1110re amenable to the prevailing Hegelian philosophy.148 Only with the
publication of Heinrich Julius Holtzmann's The Synoptic Gospels: Their
Ori,Hin and Historical Character (1863) did a revised version of the
(now largely accepted) two-source hypothesis prevail.
Debates over Mosaic history extended beyond issues of scriptural
authority to address the historical relationship between Christianity and
Judaism. Language scholarship contributed to reducing the signifi-
cance of Jews to the faith of Christ. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918),
t()r example, advanced in 1876 his well-known Documentary Hypoth-
esis, His History of Israel divided passages from the Pentateuch into
three historical groupings, Their progression revealed the institutional-
ization of the Israelite religion and its supposed process of degenera-
tion. In the first stage, inferred from the Yahwistic history (1) and the
related Elohistic source (E), the religion of Israel was a natural faith,
t"ce from law and compulsion; documents in the Deuteronomic strand
(D) revealed that the festivals were increasingly detached from nature;
the dates of their celebration were mathematically determined, and the
priesthood was exclusively Levitical; the Priestly source (P) testified to
99
CHAPTER 2
100
URHEIMAT ASlEN
Research on Hebrew and its affiliates had more than religious urgency.
The presence of a linguistic minority in the German states that was as-
\Ociated with Hebrew and whose nationality was being questioned as
part of the reaction against the emancipation edicts of the Napoleonic
101
CHAPTER 2
102
URHEIMAT ASIEN
prise them . and then arouse a very odd sensation. "ISH In the late
eighteenth century, Yiddish had been perceived as a jargon of crooks
and robbers, a secret language binding together Jews engaged in com-
merce and business. 159 Mter emancipation, the continued use of He-
brew and Yiddish was thought to undermine bourgeois ideals of social
respectability. Jewish religious services and schools were branded sites
of "irreverence and undignified behavior" and were seen as such a
threat to the social order that the rulers of some German states ordered
prayers to be said in German and forbade noise, merriment, and the
moving about during religious services. Ion
Given the expressive theory of language favored by comparative-
historical philologists and the perceived centrality of German to mem-
bership in the nation, debates over the affinities between Indo-Euro-
pean and Semitic tongues became debates over the limits of Jewish
acculturation, emancipation, and cultural regeneration. If the two lan-
guage families evolved from a common ancestor, then speakers of Ger-
man and Yiddish could be shown to have common historical roots and
to share aspects of the same linguistic organism thought to shape a
people's intellect and nationality. If the perceived points of origin for
German and Yiddish speakers were irreconcilable, then preserving the
integrity of German national culture would mandate a much higher
degree of Jewish integration.
The theological background of many Orientalists encouraged sev-
eral prominent students of Hebrew to search for bridging mechanisms
that linked the Semitic and Indo-European language families in a
shared prehistoric union. Following Friedrich Schlegel, the majority of
strict comparative-historical philologists distinguished Hebrew by the
dissyllabic character of its verb roots. In their written form the roots of
Hebrew verbs are made up of three consonants, forming two syllables
rather than one as is the case in Sanskrit. Contemporary linguists no
longer consider the number of root syllables to be decisive in classifY-
ing languages, as the unity of the syllable itself has been cast into
doubt.I(,1 But theologically minded philologists attempted to derive
Hebrew roots from simpler forms so as to show their affinity with San-
skrit and thereby light the way to a common, primordial homeland.
Heinrich Ewald's Hebrew Grammar (1828), for example, argued
that Hebrew roots consisting of three consonants were actually based
on a shorter root form composed of a radical that either doubled itself
or added a soft consonant on the end. Because he believed these
103
CHAPTER 2
104
URHEIMAT ASIEN
rcad the alphabet. When his father requested that Benfey defer study-
ing medicine due to the young age at which he entered the University
of Gbttingen, he chose classical philology instead. Benfey acquired for-
mal training in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin from K. O. Muller and G. L.
Dissen, spending a semester with Heinrich Ewald and Friedrich Thier-
sell in Munich. He shared their commitment to liberal nationalism, at-
tending the Hambach Festival in 1832 and later welcoming Prussia's
efforts to unity Germany. These political sympathies, however, do not
explain why Bcnfey struggled to find a salaried university position. He
labored as an unpaid lecturer in Gbttingen for nine years, postponing
his marriage to Fanny Wallerstein, and then only obtaining a meager
salary in 1843 after winning the prestigious Volney prize for a lexicon
of Greek roots. Despite a splendid career he was repeatedly denied pro-
motion and lodged British students to supplement his income. Accord-
ing to Benfey's daughter Meta, the impossibility of a Jew pursuing a ca-
reer in comparative Indo- European philology forced him to convert in
1848. 165
An accidental wager encouraged Theodor Benfey to learn Sanskrit
in 1830. Friends bet that four weeks were too few for him to review a
book in an unknown language. Benfey proved them wrong and increas-
ingly dedicated his energies to Indology.l66 Like A. W. Schlegel he ap-
proached the field from a foundation in classical philology, applying his
critical and textual skills to editing the Vedas and placing Vedic Sanskrit
in historical and comparative perspective. The publication of a 356-page
article on India in Ersch and Gruber's 1840 encyclopedia first earned
him success in the field. Critical editions and translations of the Sama
Veda (1848), ancient Vedic religious chants, and the Panchatantra
( 1859), a collection of Indian animal fables, as well as Benfey's Sanskrit
grammars and dictionaries solidified his reputation. Benfey likewise
edited inscriptions in Old Persian, rightly arguing for a close connection
between Vedic Sanskrit and Old Avestan, the language of the sacred
Zoroastrian hymns or Gathas. 167
Hebrew and other Semitic languages also received Benfey's atten-
tions, so that contemporaries held him in awe for his mastery of both
Indian and Hebrew antiquity.168 His two main works in the field both
t()rcgrounded moments of cultural contact between speakers of Indo-
European and Semitic languages. His treatise On the Month Names of
Some Ancient Peoples (1836), for example, argued that Hebrew names
t()r the months had been adopted from Farsi during the Babylonian
105
Theodor Benfey, scholar of Indo-European and Semitic antiquity.
URHEIMAT ASIEN
exile; the later expansion of the Persian Empire into Syria and Palestine
reinforced the borrowed terms. '69 Similarly, the introduction to Ben-
fey's Pantschatantra stressed the importance of Arabic and Jewish
translators in the transmission of Indian fairy tales and animal fables to
Europe.'70 More significantly, Benfey proposed in On the Egyptian)s Re-
lationship to the Semitic Language Family (1844) that Semitic tongues
were related to Coptic, the variant of ancient Egyptian spoken circa
200-1100 and the liturgical language of Coptic Christianity. He suc-
cessfully linked Semitic, Berber, and Cushitic (Ethiopian) languages,
helping to classiJY what is today known as the Mro-Asiatic language
family. Baron Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen had earlier proposed that
Coptic arose in a union of Semitic and Indo-European languages.'7'
And Benfey acknowledged a possible affinity in the root words of both
families, while partaking in Bopp's skepticism of their sharing inflective
t()fms. 172
Benfey's main contribution to linguistics challenged, albeit unsuc-
cessfully, Bopp's understanding of the original monosyllabic elements
that had composed Proto-Indo-European. His theory of "primary
verbs" made more likely the prospect of finding evidence that Semitic
and Indo-European forms had descended from the same source. Bopp
assumed the existence of two primordial classes of Indo- European
roots. Verbal roots had evolved into verbs and nouns; pronominal roots
gave form to pronouns, conjunctions, particles, and prepositions.,n By
1837 Benfey had rejected the term "root" on the grounds that the
most primitive elements of Indo-European languages had not been
roots, but a primordial type of monosyllabic verb.'74 These primary
verbs had produced nouns and all other grammatical forms. m A new
theory of suffixes supported this hypothesis. Within the Indo- Euro-
pean family, Bopp assumed that noun torms originated from the affix-
ing of a case-sign to a root. Most such nouns had an element between
the root and the case-sign, known as stem-forming suffixes. Bopp be-
lieved that all stem-forming suffixes derived from a collection of pro-
nouns. In Bentey's view, these suffixes were originally the same and de-
rived from the verbal form ant, which appears in the present active
participle of Sanskrit. '76
According to Benfey, the search for primary monosyllabic verbs
took the linguist back to an earlier moment in the evolution of Indo-
European languages before roots had formed. Primary verbs "preceded
[roots] by many stages oflinguistic development. ,,177 He accepted, fur-
107
CHAPTER 2
108
URHEIMAT ASIEN
109
CHAPTER 2
ety before becoming members of the nation.I'!1 Even when German na-
tionalism did not directly include devotion to the Christian faith, na-
tionalist goals were often identifIed with the content and significance of
Christianity. In Fears that the Jewish minority formed a "state within a
state" refusing to submit to bureaucratic authority evolved into a neg-
ative depiction of Jews as a distinct Volk, especially as the mechanical
view of the state typical of the eighteenth century gave way to an or-
ganic conception of nationhood.
Comparative philologists aided in this process of cultural segrega-
tion by "Orientalizing" the ancient Hebrews and excluding Jews from
the sacred drama of salvation being carried out by a chosen Indo- Eu-
ropean people. The Orientalization of European Jews has a history
prior to the nineteenth century. Enlightenment Pietists, for example,
wishing to purge ceremonial and ritual "Jewish" elements from their
religion of pure ethics, had already tried to detach Christianity from its
"Oriental" origins. 193 Insisting on the disparate origins of the Semitic
and Indo- European language families once again threatened to rob the
ancient Hebrews of religious significance. As Maurice Olender has ob-
served, nineteenth-century philologists were willing to accept that the
ancient Semites held the secret of monotheism but denied them any
role in universal historical progress. Science, art, and the mastery over
nature were portrayed as achievements of Aryan antiquity; the Semites
were depicted as being immobile and in need of the dynastic and mi-
gratory abilities of the Indo-Europeans to spread the word of God. 194
In his view, Hebrews were identified with an invariable truth that ex-
cluded them from historical change and as such were in need of being
rescued from the timeless paradise to which they had been relegated. 19 '
Comparative philologists such as Johann Heinrich Kalthoff
(1803-39) devalued the contributions ancient Hebrews had made to
religion and cultural progress. l % A student of A. W. Schlegel, he com-
bined comparative philology and archaeology in his Handbook of He-
braic Antiquities (1840). According to Kalthoff~ "ancient Jewish life
... found in religion its entire definition." However, he understood the
religiosity of the Hebrews within the larger context of a mystical, reli-
gious Orient. 197 The only thing unique about the Hebrews was that un-
like the Chinese, for example, they were able to differentiate God and
nature and recognized the true creator and Lord. The "outward cul-
tural state" of the Hebrews revealed to Kalthoff their failure to
progress. Despite an intense inner life and "all their true high Bildung,"
llO
URHEIMAT ASIEN
HI
CHAPTER 2
112
3
Urvolk GermDfliD
Historicizing Language and the Nation
in German Philologq, 1806-72
113
CHAPTER 3
sued from the force of nature," and he urged the nation to rally around
its most precious possession. I
Historicizing the German nation as an Urvolk whose youthful
language preserved pure cultural ties to antiquity was a rhetorical strat-
egy common to patriots of the Napoleonic period. During the French
occupation language acquired new significance as a marker of national-
ity and political allegiance. Ernst Moritz Arndt, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn,
Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Heinrich Luden all publicized the notion
that the nation's vitality lay in its stalwart mother tongue and that cul-
tural education in its literary expressions and history was crucial to
strengthening German nationhood. Their emphasis on the au-
tonomous historical development of the German language propagated
anti -French sentiment by evoking a genealogy distinct from that of Ro-
mance-speaking peoples. Since German humanists rediscovered Taci-
tus's Germania in 1457 and with it the heroic tale of Hermann the
Cherusker defeating the legions of Quinctilius Varus in the Teutoburg
Forest in 9 AD, recourse to a specifically Germanic past had been used
to shield northern Europe from perceived waves of Roman culture. By
the late eighteenth century, a number of resurrected literary works and
forgotten myths had succeeded in breaking the Mediterranean
monopoly on antiquity and in elevating the prestige of what appeared
to be a deep and noble northern past. 2 Jordanes's History of the Goths
suggested to Danish scholars that Europe had been populated from the
north, and late eighteenth-century translations of the Old Norse Eddas
convinced J. G. Herder and others that Scandinavia offered the Ger-
man genius a "treasure trove" that was "more appropriate than the
mythology of the Romans. ,,3
This chapter outlines a second model of German linguistic na-
tionhood, one built on a new valuation of the Germanic past over and
against classical antiquity. It shows how the process of historicizing the
German language enabled philologists to resurrect the primordial past
of a German Urvolk, while giving nostalgic witness to its dissolution
through time. The techniques of historical grammar developed by
Jacob Grimm (17S5-1865) helped identity the cultural starting point
of the first Ur-German speakers and trace their subsequent division
into different tribes and dialect groups. The diversity and political frag-
mentation of contemporary Germans, let alone speakers of more
broadly Germanic tongues, compelled these scholars to reconcile an
ideal of original linguistic unity with a reality of provincialism. And the
114
URVOLK GERMANIA
chapter explores the different ways Protestant Germans from the north
and Catholics from the south, especially Johann Andreas Schmeller
(1785-1852), interpreted the relative authenticity and cultural value of
linguistic expressions that differed by region, confession, and class, as
well as those particular to women and rural populations. Reflections on
the antiquity and historical character of standard written High German
and German dialects responded to conflicts and differences within the
German states and in turn set expectations for how different linguistic
groups could participate in the nation.
For most of the nineteenth century, scholarship on the German
language took place within the broader literary field of German philol-
ogy-itself nominally distinct from, but closely entwined with, the
study of German law and history or Germanics. 4 The success with
which German philology established itself as a university discipline de-
pended on the degree to which the German states were willing to tol-
erate and then themselves mobilize nationalism as a political force.
Until the 1860s German language scholars maintained a largely oppo-
sitional stance to local princes as representatives of bureaucratic state
interests rather than the nation. The liberal-nationalist convictions of
German philologists slowed the creation of university chairs in the field,
as well as reforms at the secondary school level that would have pro-
duced a greater demand for academically trained teachers of German.
This chapter examines the intersection of German language scholarship
and the nationalist movement, tracing the gradual conversion of the
field to a relatively conservative defender of Prussian interests in the
years prior to unification in 187l.
The chapter likewise analyzes what impact a focus on the origins
and historical descent of the German language had for how the com-
munity of the nation was imagined. The historicization of language in
the early nineteenth century, it will be seen, changed the conditions of
linguistic community as they had been imagined by the language
purists and patriots of the eighteenth century. Rather than represent
speakers' ability to participate in a pragmatic network of communica-
tion and exchange, the German mother tongue came to symbolize
common descent from a northern homeland. Recourse to a common
set of origins appealed to nationalists at a time when their educated
middle-class audiences suffered from regional and professional frag-
mentation. Language provided a semblance of historical continuity that
gave credence to the new cultural memories and narratives of national
us
CHAPTER 3
origin that defined the national elite. Yet celebrating a prehistoric Ur-
volk failed to address the very real problems nationalists faced in forg-
ing dialogue and unity among diverse regional populations who liter-
ally had trouble communicating across confessional and class lines. A
historical approach to language tended to emphasize the autonomy of
language as a being shaped by its formative origins, rather than its mal-
leability as a system of signs under the direction of free linguistic agents.
116
URVOLK GERMANIA
117
CHAPTER 3
quarian interest in Gothic and Old German was already present among
northern humanists such as Franciscus Junius (1589-1677); German
language scholars compiled rudimentary dictionaries and grammars
through the mid-eighteenth century, although without adequate atten-
tion to issues of sound change. By the last decades of the century, an
interest in practical and philosophical grammar had overshadowed this
historical approach. The primary concern of Enlightenment grammar-
ians, including Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700-1766) and Johann
Christoph Addung, was to establish German as a language of academic
discourse equivalent to Latin. Their largely prescriptive works devel-
oped key terminology for classitying contemporary German and set
grammatical, lexical, and orthographic norms that standardized the
language. IS Although Adelung, in particular, believed grammatical
principles had to be understood in their historical evolution, there was
among early Germanists little attempt to reconstruct specific historical
states of the mother tongue.
German philology earned greater recognition at the university by
applying the critical methodology of classicists to the interpretation and
critical editing of medieval German texts. In 1805 Georg Friedrich Be-
necke (1762-1844), a student of the classicist C. G. Heyne, procured
the first post in German philology at the University of G6ttingen,
promising to expend equal philological rigor on the literature of the fa-
therland. Benecke argued that university instruction in German should
extend beyond the scant practical training in rhetoric, style, and aes-
thetics that had been available in the eighteenth century, offering
courses in the history of medieval German literature. Karl Lachmann
(1793-1851), his prodigy, similarly impressed the neohumanist estab-
lishment in 1816 by adapting to the Nibelungenlied the epic theory and
textual criticism exemplified in F. A. Wolf's Prolegomena ad Homerum
(1795). One of two joint chairs in classical and German philology, the
Berlin professor set the standards for the critical, historical interpreta-
tion of German literature and for the editing of Middle High German
texts. His disciplined editions and equally demanding personality ban-
ished from the field perceived dilettantes such as von der Hagen, whose
questionable "modernizations" of the Nibelungenlied contributed as
much to the saga's popularity as to the lowly reputation suffered by
early Germanists.
The invention of historical grammar-which was the most dra-
matic achievement of early German language scholars-responded,
118
URVOLK GERMANIA
119
CHAPTER 3
120
URVOLJ( GERMANIA
121
CHAPTER 3
122
URVOLK GERMANIA
123
CHAPTER 3
(to bind) inflects to assume the form "band" in the past and ''gebun-
den" in the past participle. This Ablaut is the defining feature of strong
verbs; according to Grimm, it was their "soul." But similar changes can
also be seen in the formation of derivative nouns, in this case in the
variations "die Binde" (the bandage), "das Band" (the bond or tie),
and "der Bund" (the bundle ):17
Grimm proposed that those verbs distinguished by their regular
use of internal vowel modification to signifY tense were constitutive of
the family and not, as commonly assumed, peculiar exceptions to the
more prevalent form of conjugation in New High German. The defin-
ing feature of the more common weak verbs is their appension of reg-
ular inflectional endings to the stem to form the past tense, as in the in-
finitive "hoffin" (to hope) which inflects as "hoffte" in the past and
''gehofft'' in the past participle. Grimm believed that the strong verbs
"directly reveal [ed] . . . the profound, pensive order of the linguistic
spirit [Sprachgeist]," and he revered the Ablaut as the living force be-
hind the language. 38 In his analysis, systematic vowel changes lay at "the
foundation of all Germanic word formation," the Umlaut being an-
other modification typical of the Germanic languages. 39
This association of vowel inflection with the authentically Ger-
manic was reinforced by Grimm's discovery of the archaic, primordial
nature of this grammatical form. Grimm interpreted the Ablaut as
being characteristic of "the truly oldest form of conjugation," having
evolved in a historical period before the first writers. 4o In his view,
strong verbs were relics of older, more organic linguistic forms and
could be used as a measure for tracking the gradual degeneration of
language. Grimm identified three "gradations" of the Germanic lan-
guages based on the decreasing frequency with which the Ablaut des-
ignated grammatical function. 41
The question of when Germanic speakers emerged as a Volk dis-
tinct from their Indo-European neighbors was not broached until the
second edition of the Grammar, published in 1822.42 The new 596-
page section "On Letters" detailed the separation of the Germanic lan-
guages from the larger Indo-European family with reference to sound
changes that evolved historically in a particular series of consonants.
Grimm discerned in the composition of Germanic root words a "dou-
ble sound shift that has important consequences for the history of the
language and for the stringency of etymology." Since 1837 this has
been known as "Grimm's Law." It specified that "just as Old High
124
URVOLK GERMANIA
German has sunk down a level in all three grades from Gothic, so did
Gothic itself sink down a level from Latin (Greek, Indic).,,43 Grimm
took those consonants appearing in the roots of Greek, Sanskrit, and
Latin words to exemplifY constructions shared by the common ances-
tor of all Indo-European languages and showed that in the first Ger-
manic languages roots of similar meaning were built using an alterna-
tive series of consonants. Secondly, he demonstrated that consonants in
Old High German had undergone a second series of modifications that
distinguished the language from what is now known as Proto-Ger-
. 44
mamc.
To show the systematic nature of these consonant shifts, Grimm
devised several tables. 45 In each case, those sounds typical of the com-
mon ancestor of western Indo- European languages are shown to evolve
into an alternative set first in Proto-Germanic and then again in Old
High German:
Table 1
Table 2
Latin c g h
Gothic h,g k g
Old High German h,g ch k
125
CHAPTER 3
The first Germanic sound shift indicated to Grimm that the earli-
est Germans had broken otT from the other western branches of the
Indo-European family and emerged as a "nation" some time before the
Christian era. The second or High German sound shift was believed to
have taken place between the first and eighth centuries AD and to have
separated speakers of the West Germanic languages into a High and
Low German group. Practically, Grimm's observations enabled philol-
ogists to use etymology more accurately when tracing the historical de-
velopment oflinguistic forms. In his words, it was no longer a question
of demonstrating the "equivalence or affinity of generally related con-
sonants" but of recognizing "historical levels of gradation that cannot
be displaced or reversed. ,,47 Etymology evolved from being more or less
subjective guesswork to a science that enabled a precise genealogy of
language. For example, after Grimm's Grammar, the New High Ger-
man word for "head" (Kopf) could no longer be derived from the
Latin "caput" despite the similarities in their sound and meaning.
Rather, the German word" Haupt" must be seen as the true derivative
of the Latin having gone through the C-H,G-H,G transition in its
Gothic and Old High German forms.4R
As presented in the German Grammar, Grimm's sound shifts at-
tributed to language an autonomous internal principle of organic
growth that itself defined communities of speakers. For Grimm, the
inner life of language consisted in a subjective agent embodying itself
in external forms.49 This implied that the type of community formation
at work in the emergence of the German nation transpired almost as a
function of language itself. According to Grimm, language change
charted a path of progressive decline through history, its forms appear-
ing "more noble" and "purer" the further they reached back toward
Gothic in the pre-Christian era. 50 He imagined the linguistic perfection
found at the moment of origin to consist in language merging with the
world so that virtually no gap existed between words and things.'1 As
language matured, it acquired more mediated, abstract, and conceptual
forms, mirroring the evolution of Natur- to Kunstpoesie. This raised
the prospect of modern speakers self-consciously manipulating the ob-
served gap between language and the world, as that between a lost na-
tional essence and the present. According to Toews, Grimm was not
prepared in the 1820s to envision integrating more authentic linguistic
forms into the structures of modern High German. Rather, as his sub-
sequent work German Legal Antiquities (1828) indicates, a native tra-
126
URVOLK GERMANIA
127
CHAPTER 3
128
The Bavarian dialectologist Johann Andreas Schmeller in 1849.
CHAPTER 3
130
URVOLK GERMANJA
131
CHAPTER 3
132
URVOLK GERMANIA
133
CHAPTER 3
134
URVOLK GERMANIA
135
CHAPTER 3
thenticity, and certain creative powers that were essential to the forma-
tion of a national consciousness and public opinion. The creators of
fairy tales and sagas, Grimm suspected, had an inborn love for the
Heimat, a healthy sense for family and the patriarchal order, respect for
religion, as well as a natural teel tor what is right and just:~ But he did
not believe that all people should share in the governing process. For
Grimm the state was principally a paternalistic apparatus of administra-
tion and government that, while it served the interests of the nation,
was independent of it. The historical sensibilities of the folk did not jus-
tifY bestowing political sovereignty on the people.
The community of German speakers that Johann Andreas
Schmeller envisioned was united by a more inclusive discursive order of
exchange. As a scholar and teacher, Schmeller considered it his duty to
involve underrepresented populations in the elite social and political life
of the nation. He dedicated the grammar to "everyone who wishes to
have contact with the common man"; it was intended to help school
teachers, priests, judges, and civil servants "lift the masses higher and
understand them. ,,~O Their right to participate was not dictated by a
special connection to the cultural starting point of the German nation,
but by the goal of promoting mutual understanding and communica-
tion. "I have not entirely lived tor nothing," Schmeller reflected, "even
if out of the law giver, world reformer, poet, etc. of my youthful
dreams, only a culler of words and a pedant has emerged. But it is note-
worthy to have made something out of nothing or at least out of the
lowest of the low, and to have brought the language of the Bavarian
farmer into the chambers of the very learned on the North and Baltic
Seas, yes even into the elegant chambers of important men." He cred-
ited himself with having earned "certain honors" for the only posses-
sion in which the rural inhabitants of Bavaria could take pride: their na-
tive language. Soon, he hoped, one would consider it "atrocious ... to
disinherit them of all the other goods of life. ,,91
At a time when the diversity of German speakers and the
sovereign powers of the states severely compromised the nationalist
movement, Schmeller's linguistic history from below may have offered
a more useful model for communal integration than the prospect of
shared historical descent. Basing national unity on the written bond of
standardized High German held little attraction for the manifold speak-
ers of German dialects. Schmeller's grammar forged ties between the
actual mother tongue of Bavarians and the High German spoken by the
136
URVOLK GERMANIA
137
CHAPTER 3
138
URVOLK GERMANIA
to avoid at all costS ... ; its expressions are becoming clearer, more con-
.
SClOUS
. ,,107 Language, 111
an d more preclse. . otIler word s, was matunng .
"with honor to manhood. ,,108 If in an earlier period German was closer
to nature and the sensual, it was now ripe for the abstract and concep-
tual thought of men. He praised, in particular, Luther's translation of
the Bible for giving High German "male bearing and force. ,,109
The language spoken by women did not participate in this histor-
ical trajectory. Women remained incapable of self-consciously wielding
the power of words. Like the folk, women supposedly retained the in-
stinctive relationship to language that characterized the historical pe-
riod of Naturpoesie. In their daily speech, women made unconscious
use of grammatical principles and displayed knowledge of archaic roots
that had otherwise been lost. They embodied their "own, living gram-
mar" and for that reason had no use for teachers or the scientific study
of language. I 10 Domestic areas were thus ideal sites of cultural transmis-
sion. The entire realm of the feminine-women, children, the home,
and also the folk-was believed to have maintained more authentic
connections to an original, unadulterated form of Germanic culture,
one not directly accessible to educated men.
The gendering of language and linguistic ability literally assigned
women the task of giving their children "speech with the mother's
milk." It was the responsibility of mothers to transmit the "instinctive
secret" that Grimm believed "in tuned our vocal organs for the charac-
teristic sounds of the fatherland, its declensions, idioms, severities, or
softness." In teaching young children to talk, women were the first to
evoke in German speakers "that indestructible feeling of longing" that
resonated among members of the nation when they encountered arti-
facts of the German past. III As such, women's participation in the na-
tion was limited to the family, providing raw cultural material that men
then mastered. Katerina Viehmann (1755-1815), the model storyteller
from whom the Grimm brothers collected the majority of their fairy
tales, represented this ideal of feminine cultural transmission. She was,
however, not a peasant transmitter of oral folk tradition, but a literate
member of a large Huguenot community settled ncar Kassel. lI2
The preface to the German Dictionary ( 1854) offered a snapshot
of the ideal gendered use of language within domestic life, as Grimm
imagined it. Despite its scholarly apparatus, Grimm expected this "sa-
cred monument to the German people" to become a "household ne-
cessity" that educated families read aloud "with devotion" like the
139
CHAPTER 3
Bible. "[W]hy should the father not select a few words," he wondered,
"and, going through them with his boys in the evening, test their
knowledge of the language while he refreshes his own?" "[T]he
mother," Grimm added, "would gladly listen in." He elaborated: "with
their healthy mother's wit and their memory for good maxims, women
often carry with them a true desire to exercise their unspoiled feeling
for language." Women, he believed, would most often return to the
pages of the book in the course of the day as they lyrically rhymed a
known word with one less familiar and endeavored to fill gaps in their
knowledge. In this way, the dictionary would instill in literate German
men and women a more vital understanding of the "worth and ... su-
periority" of their mother tongue. The literary references cited in each
definition would likewise awaken readers' "love for native literature"
and introduce them to a common body of great German works.11.l
Even during the politically restrictive Restoration, myths of cul-
tural origin and descent reached an educated audience and prepared
the middle class to conceive of a national community that extended be-
yond state borders and warranted a formal constitution. 114 The home,
not the public school, was initially the space where the ideology of a na-
tional mother tongue spread. German language instruction was slow to
establish itself at the gymnasium level during the Vormtirz. No manda-
tory testing of German teachers existed until 1831 ,when the Kingdom
of Hannover required candidates for secondary school posts to have
historical knowledge of German. 115 German lessons were most often
entrusted to masters of Greek and Latin, and former students recalled
their instruction as un methodological and unorganized. 116 Not until
the 1840s did the study of German include composition and literary
analysis, skills generally relayed by classicists. 117 Members of the bour-
geoisie resisted training in the mother tongue because they associated
it with the polytechnic, practical municipal schools of the artisan and
working classes. II~ This aversion hindered the development of univer-
sity Germanics, while confining the nationalist sentiments of the field
to elite circles.
140
URVOLK GERMANIA
141
CHAPTER 3
142
URVOLIC GERMANIA
found. 128 Ludwig I, crown prince and later king of Bavaria, earned
Schmeller's political loyalties, having made him Professor of Old Ger-
man Literature and Language in 1828. The appointment was tem-
porarily suspended until 1830 while it went to the senior, but politically
suspect, Hans Ferdinand MaBmann. Bavaria's support for the Greek
War of Independence and Ludwig's own interest in the Germanic past,
already manifest in plans to build Walhalla, rendered the state relatively
receptive to the gymnastic movement. m
Dedicated to the young Ludwig, the dictionary documented cul-
tural continuity in Bavarian folk/ife from archaic times to the present.
It was, by Schmeller's account, an "essay on the language, manners,
and customs of His people" as they were revealed in spoken language
and provincial Iiterature uo To this effect it united a collection of "ex-
pressions appearing in living dialects" with those "found in older writ-
ings and documents."'~' Each definition included historical documen-
tation of the word's use and full morphological information on its
construction. 132 The entries were not sorted alphabetically by the first
letter, but according to an "etymological-alphabetical arrangement"
that followed the series of consonants that made up the stem syllable of
the word. U3 Thus, to find the word "Garten" (garden), the reader fol-
lowed the alphabetical sequence "g-r-t," giving only secondary atten-
tion to the intermediary vowels. It could be found between "Gersten"
and "Gerten."
The construction of the dictionary rendered it of primary use for
professional philologists with an interest in the historical evolution of
German linguistic forms. But Schmeller also hoped his work would
serve as "a portrait gallery of the versatile life of the folk as it is ex-
pressed in language.,,134 He planned (but ultimately neglected) to ap-
pend a thematic index of terms related, for example, to religious and
domestic customs, agriculture, or trade that would assist readers who
"think more of the things [Sachen] than of the words." 13, As is com-
mensurate with his sociological understanding of "the folk," however,
the dictionary entries do not romanticize or try to define what is au-
thentically German in Bavarian popular culture. Rather, it drew atten-
tion to the poor living conditions of less educated speakers of vernacu-
lar. Schmeller sought to correct, for example, idealized contemporary
images of rural life by offering critical commentary on the living con-
ditions of small farmers, on their treatment by landowners, and on their
daily work. 136
143
CHAPTER 3
144
URVOLK GERMANIA
and north so that the earliest and richest evidence of German culture
was to be found in Scandinavia and Saxony. Gothic and Old Icelandic
were as important for Germanists as Greek and Latin were for students
of classical antiquity because, in Grimm's words, the earliest myths,
sagas, and legal texts "flow[ ed] freely in Scandinavia but sparingly in
Germany. "IH The wave of Christianization and Romanization that had
destroyed many Germanic traditions had broken from the south, leav-
ing barbarian culture intact later and in more complete form among in-
habitants of Iceland and the far north. Jacob Grimm drew extensively
on Nordic and Anglo-Saxon sources in his histories of ancient Ger-
manic mythology and law, convinced that the lands that withstood
Christianity and Roman rule the longest retained "many precious ad-
vantages in the common life of the folk." 144 His faith in the unity of
continental German and Norse mythology resided foremost in lan-
guage and the success with which contemporary German languages
had been tied in descent to a common Ursprache. 145
As a student of Danish runes, Wilhelm Grimm was more familiar
with Nordic prehistory than his brother. 146 He, too, insisted in 1820
that "the Germanic element of our Bildung ... was preserved and de-
veloped more purely and with less disruption in the isolated north ....
Nordic antiquity relates to Germanic antiquity like the languages of
people living in isolated valleys and mountains to the languages of
those living in cities." Although no runes had of date been uncovered
in Germany, Wilhelm Grimm rightly surmised the existence of German
runes based on extent literary evidence. The Germans, he argued, had
like the Norsemen "brought the first foundations of a letter alphabet
with them from the Asian homeland. ,,147 Germanic tribes such as the
Saxons living in the north near the Danish border had, in his view, used
this ancient alphabet, and one need only study their northern neigh-
bors to reconstruct an early chapter of German national history. 148
Until the emergence of the so-called Deutschkatholiken in 1844,
Catholics played only a minor role in the German nationalist move-
ment. The influence the church maintained over gymnasial and univer-
sity education outside of Prussia, where an independent ministry of
culture had been instituted in 1817, kept the study of German lan-
guage and literature centered at the Protestant universities in Berlin,
Gottingen, Halle, Jena, Breslau, and Leipzig. Even here the local focus
ofliberal and nationalist politics hampered the coordination of a "large
German" nation that included the south. Two years following the pub-
145
CHAPTER 3
146
URVOLK GERMANIA
way. Not only had the idea of the "nation" expanded beyond a narrow
reading public in the 1840s, but nationalists had developed a sustain-
able network of communication that enabled coordinated political ac-
tion among the middle class.
German language scholars participated in these developments at
annual academic conferences where Germanists discussed nationalist is-
sues while avoiding the ban on suspect gatherings imposed by the Ger-
man Confederation in 1832. 151 At the inaugural meeting in Frankfurt
in 1846 Jacob Grimm served as the organization's first president. His
opening address posed the provocative question "What is a nation
[Volk]?" Grimm's response cited the spread oflanguage as the only lim-
itation on the territorial growth of a people. "A nation," Grimm
replied, "is the embodiment of people who speak the same language.
that is for us Germans the most innocent but also the proudest defini-
tion because it ... turns our gaze to the ... near future when all bar-
riers fall and the natural law will be acknowledged that neither rivers
nor mountains divide nations but that language alone can set bound-
aries around a people that has pushed past mountains and streams. ,,152
These words were a specific commentary on the two main political is-
sues facing the conference: the current crisis of succession in Holstein
and the continued emigration of large numbers of German speakers to
the United States. The presence of a German-speaking majority in that
northern province and in the neighboring Danish territory of
Schleswig suggested to Grimm that both should be part of the confed-
eration. Grimm also expected German emigrants overseas to retain ties
to the fatherland and "reinforce" their native language so that it would
"live forever forth" in the New World. 153
Besides work on the German Dictionary, the major piece of lin-
guistic scholarship that Grimm undertook in Berlin was a two-volume
History of the German Language completed in 1848 as the March rev-
olutions struck the capital city. The work wove a broader cultural nar-
rative around the linguistic events sketched in the German Grammar.
Dedicated to a fellow member of the Gottingen Seven from Frankfurt
in June 1848, it was, in Grimm's words, "political through and
through," arising out of the "duties and dangers of the fatherland. ,,154
The History publicized what he termed "the inner bonds of a people"
in expectation of overcoming the fatherland's "unjust partition by
princes."l55 In what was criticized as an overly "speculative manner,,,15'
Grimm argued for the original affinity of the languages once spoken by
147
CHAPTER 3
the ten main European tribes as they migrated westward. His main goal
was to establish, using etymology and lexical considerations, the "iden-
tity of the Goths and Getae,,,IS7 a tribe now believed to be related to
the Celts that inhabited Thrace, a province between the Balkans and
the Carpathian mountains. Grimm also argued for the probability of
more extensive contacts between the Goths and the Daci, supposed an-
cestors of the Danes. These links between north and south were, for
Grimm, evidence of original affinity among present-day speakers of
Germanic tongues. Comparativists criticized his almost complete lack
of attention to Sanskrit and other related languages, and his main the-
sis of Gothic-Getic identity ultimately failed despite the popularity of
the book. ISH
Nevertheless, Grimm successfully demonstrated how the recovery
of language could aid in reconstructing material and cultural history.
The two volumes aspired to "reach from the words to the things, "IS9
inaugurating the so-called "Wijrter-und-Sachen" approach to prehis-
tory and anthropology.160 "There is more vital evidence for nations than
bones, weapons, and graves," Grimm explained, "and that is their lan-
guages ... when all other sources run dry or the existing remains leave
us uncertain and in doubt, nothing can be more conclusive for ancient
history than careful research on the kinship or deviations of every lan-
guage and vernacular unto their finest veins or fibers.,,161 Words,
Grimm demonstrated, revealed new affInities in the "faith, law, and
customs" of the prehistoric Germanic tribes as they abandoned a no-
madic lifestyle for sedentary agriculture. 162 The History contained ma-
terial intended for a history of German custom and mores, and for lin-
guists its most valuable contribution was examining the vocabulary of
material culture as related, for example, to mctals, livestock, or grain,
in early Germanic languages. lo3
A new conception of language and its role in the formation of
communities distinguishes this account of the Germanic tongues from
the German Grammar. The greater contIdence Grimm amassed as an
insider to the Prussian project of translating the historical recovery of a
national past into official public memory lessened the autonomy
Grimm attributed to the evolution of language as an organism. As
Toews indicates, Grimm's discussion of the two Germanic sound shifts
now stressed that the historical forms of language were motivated by
more than a formative point of origin. The inner laws governing the
linguistic organism alone could not explain the sound shifts. Rather,
148
URVOL/( GERMANIA
149
CHAPTER 3
tive "dialects" into a new mother tongue. "I hold a conversion of the
Dutch to High German, of the Danes to Swedish not only for likely in
the next centuries," Grimm observed, "but also for beneficial for all
Germanic peoples. ,,169 "Before many generations have passed, only
three peoples will share in the dominion of Europe: Romans, Germans,
Slavs." 170 In his correspondence with Danish and Norwegian scholars,
Grimm spoke of a "great alliance" between the German states and
Scandinavia that "recall[ ed] the primordial tribal union" with a certain
degree of political expectation. 171 Other Germanists, such as Heinrich
Hoffmann von Fallersleben, sympathized with the fate of Flemish
speakers in the newly founded kingdom of Belgium. Fallersleben's
twelve-volume study of Belgian literature (1830) responded to the pain
of observing "this land being torn away from the greater German tribe
(Volksstamm)" as French became the official state language.172
As the History of the German Language went to press, Jacob
Grimm served as a representative to the Frankfurt parliament charged
with drafting a national constitution for Germany. The delegates delib-
erated for close to a year on the most suitable form for German unifi-
cation, finally admitting that the paltry state of the nationalist move-
ment in Austria prevented the inclusion of Habsburg territory.173 Their
debates dismissed the apparent historical necessities of language and
ethnicity in favor of treating citizenship rights independently of cultural
background. 174 Like the majority of delegates, Grimm favored a small
Germany led by a hereditary Prussian emperor for practical reasons, ex-
pecting that the other Germanic peoples would gradually join the
union. Johann Andreas Schmeller likewise resigned himself to exclud-
ing Austria at this time, awaiting the spread of liberal reform to the
monarchy and wary of its imperial structure. 175 He, too, had been voted
into the professor-parliament in the Paulskirche but had been unable to
attend due to injuries incurred crossing the Jaufen mountain pass. 176
In September 1848 Grimm himself quit the assembly in protest of
the generous peace treaty Prussia had signed with Denmark. He feared
that Prussia had once again demonstrated that it valued its own inter-
ests as a state above its national responsibility to unite German-speak-
ers everywhere. l77 Friedrich Wilhelm IV's rejection of the imperial
crown and the violent suppression of the revolution by Prussian troops
in the spring of 1849 did little to dispel this view. A practical conces-
sion to small-German plans for unification was no longer necessary; po-
150
URVOL[( GERMANIA
litical avenues of nation building were closed for a second time since
the Napoleonic invasions.
In his speech "On the Origin of Language" to the Prussian
Academy in 1851, Grimm again confirmed that language, not princes
or armies, was the driving force behind the consolidation of the German
nation. Language is "our history, our heritage," he argued. "The power
of language" "builds nations and holds them together, without such a
bond they would burst apart; the wealth of a people's thought is prin-
cipally that which secures its dominion in the world. ,,178 The essay at-
tributed an explicitly ethnic dimension to the German cultural commu-
nity, associating the successful transmission of national tongues with the
inheritance of a particular physical body. An abandoned newborn of
French or Russian parentage who was "taken in and reared in the mid-
dle of Germany" would naturally speak German like the other children
around him.17Q But "some of our German sounds," Grimm suggested,
would always "seem hard" to him. Language, Grimm explained, had an
"underlying basis which is necessarily conditioned by the created body."
The "voice instruments" that produced sound were, in his mind, "in-
herited" and particular to national groups. ISO "Already present in the
throats of children," he concluded, was "the inherent tendency towards
the expression of appropriate sound modifications." Slavs, tor example,
were conditioned to use "strong sibilant combinations" or "harsh gut-
turals." The study of anatomy, he predicted, would soon enable schol-
ars to distinguish even the "linguistic instruments" of a northern Ger-
man and an Alpine shepherd. 181
For Grimm in 1851 lines of ethnic descent qualified a child's abil-
ity to master German as a native tongue. Joining the German linguis-
tic community through a process of voluntary self-identification would
necessarily leave a mark of difference. There were clear limits to the de-
gree language as a historical form could be mobilized by free linguistic
agents in a self-determining community. For Grimm, the cultural in-
tegrity of the nation ultimately depended on the historically necessary
bonds imposed by shared descent from a common cultural starting
point. As Toews concludes, Jacob Grimm never did regard politics as a
forum where individuals could freely adapt and recreate historical iden-
tities. '82 Even as German unification under Prussian leadership became
increasingly probable in the 1860s, the perceived evolution of the Ger-
man language maintained a substantial degree of independence from
the control and direction of speakers. Deeply rooted ethnic continuities
151
CHAPTER 3
·152
URVOLK GERMANIA
can read and interpret texts in Old and Middle High German" or have
training in philosophy. 185
The 1860s mark the consolidation of German philology as a full-
fledged university discipline. The number of chairs grew from thirteen
to twenty.lH6 Rudolf von Raumer arranged for Germanists to be ac-
cepted in 1861 as a special section of the annual meetings of classical
philologists, school masters, and Orientalists; the more rigorous train-
ing of secondary school teachers had improved the reputation of Ger-
manics in the eyes of classicists. ls7 These developments coincided with
a closer orientation of the field toward the Prussia of Otto von Bis-
marck. Wilhelm Scherer famously depicted German philology as "the
daughter of national enthusiasm," a field motivated by "love of the na-
tion."IHH The wars of German unification and the founding of a North
German Confederation made apparent that Prussia was ascending to
national leadership. As the resolution to the constitutional crisis of
1862 indicates, many German liberals were willing to sacrifice their po-
litical convictions for national unity, and so, it appears, were academics
in the field of German philology.
Born in Lower Austria to family of civil servants, Wilhelm Scherer
is a case in point. Scherer completed his secondary education in Vienna
during the period of reaction that Emperor Franz Joseph instituted
after 1848. For two years he studied German philology with Franz
Pfeiffer, as well as comparative linguistics, at the University of Vienna.
The repression of nationalism and liberalism in Austria and a conflict
with Pfeiffer over the interpretation of the Nibelungenlied, however,
brought Scherer to Berlin, where he attended Jacob Grimm's lectures
and studied text-historical methods with Karl Miillenhoff. In a debate
over the authorship of that saga, Pfeiffer meshed criticism of Prussia
with his opposition to Miillenhoff's northern German philological
school. Scherer opted to bestow his nationalist ambitions and political
loyalties on Prussia even after its crushing defeat of the Austrians in
1866. 189 Scherer launched his academic career as an assistant to Miillen-
hoft~ editing early medieval poetry and prose. But when offered a po-
sition in Vienna in 1864, he returned to his native city. During his
eight-year tenure at the university, Scherer repeatedly faced reprimand
for his support of Prussia and German national unification. 190 Although
he imagined the German nation expanding beyond state borders to in-
clude native speakers in Austria, Scherer never sympathized with the
idea of a Grofldeutschland.
153
CHAPTER 3
154
URVOLK GERMANIA
155
CHAPTER 3
The implications of this are varied. Did Germans have to fear that
cultural contact with speakers of Romance languages might once again
fracture the nation? Was war with France necessary to guarantee Ger-
man unity? Either way, Scherer assumed the existence of an essential,
deeply rooted German "psychology,,205 that acted in concert with phys-
iological mechanisms to produce the language that united the nation.
The national tongue, in turn, shaped the mentality and outward cul-
tural forms that drew together speakers of German. Historical contin-
gencies had only a slight impact on the regular and consistent laws gov-
erning the inner life of language. As holds true for earlier Germanists,
Scherer attributed a powerful explanatory potential to the interpreta-
tion of origins. Deciphering an act of emergence allowed the linguist to
pinpoint a national essence and trace its continued impact on genera-
tions of German speakers.
The linguists who came to prominence in Germany in the 1870s
owed a substantial debt to Scherer. According to Hermann Paul,
Scherer taught the Neogrammarians (Neugrammatiker) the impor-
tance of sound physiology, the exceptionless nature of linguistic laws,
and how to explain sound change based on the principle of false anal-
ogy. Four of the founding members, including Paul, specialized in Ger-
manic tongues and likewise credited Scherer with revealing the impor-
tance of Old High German in determining Proto-Germanic forms.
However, the Neogrammarians also dealt Scherer devastating blows
for lacking a sound empirical basis and for his hastily drawn conclu-
sions. 206 Scherer's search for a deep psychological explanation for lan-
guage change ran counter to their more stringent form of positivism.
Scherer was quickly discarded as a mentor and his linguistic studies ta-
pered off by the later 1870s. The center of German language study had
shifted away from the discipline of German philology.
In 1872, following the Franco-Prussian war, Scherer himself ea-
gerly accepted a chair at the new imperial university in the recently oc-
cupied Alsatian city of Strassburg. His self-proclaimed mission was to
invest local students with a sense of their German cultural inheritance
and thus earn their loyalty for the new Kaiserreich. Scherer's expecta-
tions far exceeded the reality of nation building, however. Shunned by
the Alsatians, the German professors remained isolated among them-
selves, finding their only contact with soldiers. 207 Scherer remained in
the post at the personal request of Bismarck until 1877, when he rc-
156
URVOLK GERMANIA
joined his former colleagues in Berlin as the first chair in the History of
German Literature.
After the Reichsgriindung, the field of Germanics increasingly
served the ideological needs ofthe new nation-state, having lost the lib-
eral and oppositional overtones of the Restoration and Vormiirz peri-
ods. A conservative nationalism infused the institutionalization of uni-
versity seminars in Germanics after 1871, as well as German instruction
at the secondary schools. 208 The Kaiserreich pursued a conscious policy
of promoting the field, as German language, literature, and history oc-
cupied a central place in its national-cultural agenda. Comparative lin-
guistics profited, as well, by virtue of its association with the history of
the German language, gaining both prestige and an expansion in aca-
demic chairs. 20o Not until the 1890s, however, could Germanics truly
compete with classical studies as a Brotwissenschaft or bread-and-butter
discipline. 2lO Kaiser Wilhelm II declared to a conference of school re-
formers in December 1890 that "Our school system lacks at present,
above all, its national basis. We must take German for the foundation
of our gymnasia. We want to educate our pupils into young Germans,
not young Greeks or Romans. ,,211 For most of the nineteenth century,
scholars of Greek and Latin held sway over the German cultural imag-
ination, even as a comparative and historical approach to language
stuck a thorn in their idealization of classical antiquity.
157
4
Urbild Hellas
~anguage. Classical PhiiologU. and the Ancient Greeks.
1806-66
159
CHAPTER 4
160
URBILD HELLAS
161
CHAPTER 4
162
URBILD HELLAS
163
CHAPTER 4
164
URBILD HELLAS
165
CHAPTER 4
they could rely on cultural and spiritual ties to sustain the nation. Dur-
ing the Wars of Liberation publicists exploited the neohumanist affin-
ity for Greece, depicting German resistance as an effort to escape from
the political tyranny of Roman culture. In occupied Germany, where
the national spirit was believed to have taken refuge in cultural and ed-
ucational institutions, the philological seminars of such universities as
Berlin readily assumed patriotic tones. 2S A highly politicized program of
neohumanist pedagogical reform that began in Prussia and gradually
spread to the other German states likewise made public the nationalist
reception of Greek antiquity.
The Prussian statesman and educational reformer Wilhelm von
Humboldt, likewise a student of C. G. Heyne, exemplifies the transi-
tion of neohumanism from an antiaristocratic, eighteenth-century
movement to a moderately nationalist state-sponsored program. For a
brief period between February 1809 and July 1810 Humboldt served
as the head of newly created Sektion fur Kultus und Unterricht of the
Prussian Interior Ministry. As part of the wide-ranging series of reforms
begun by Karl von Hardenberg and Karl Freiherr vom Stein, he estab-
lished classical studies as the backbone of German education. Hum-
boldt restricted university admissions to graduates of classical schools
or gymnasia who had passed the Abitur, an exam requiring extensive
translations of Greek texts, as well as testing in Latin. Humboldt like-
wise designed the model university of Berlin, the first working and re-
search university in Germany, around F. A. Wolf's philological seminar.
This institutionalized the cultural leadership of classical philologists in
the universities and secondary schools, affirming the importance of
neohumanism to the state and public sphere. 26 Philological seminars
became the training grounds for future bureaucrats in the expanding
administration of the territorial states, as well as for ecclesiastics in the
Lutheran state churches. 27
For Humboldt, Hellenic antiquity offered foremost a Bil-
dungsideal that could be applied to the cultivation of the self. As he ex-
plained in "Latium and Hellas: Observations on Classical Antiquity,"
an essay written in 1806 while Humboldt was serving as the Prussian
ambassador to the Holy See in Rome, the pedagogical value of Greek
antiquity lay in its embodying the ideal in all aspects of human life.
Only the Hellenes "allude[d] to the ideal in everything" and demon-
strated in art, poetry, religion, morality, and public life how one can
achieve a "bridge from the individual to the ideal. ,,28 Humboldt's neo-
166
URBILD HELLAS
167
CHAPTER 4
168
URBILD RELLAS
169
CHAPTER 4
170
URBILD HELLAS
171
CHAPTER 4
172
URBILD HELLAS
173
CHAPTER 4
174
URBILD HELLAS
trated the ideal nature of the Greek past. Hermann still had faith that
the eternal qualities of the rational mind were expressed in the timeless
classicism of ancient Greek literature.
In an 1827 article published in the Rheinisches Museum, Boeckh
affirmed that language was important to understanding the ancient
Greeks but challenged the significance the senior scholar attributed to
the pursuit of grammar. Philology, he suggested, was not a generalized
study of human reason but a scientific, historical examination of the
"life and work" of "a particular people during a relatively restricted pe-
riod." As a form of thought, language should be considered one of the
"things" of antiquity comparable with religion, political life, or house-
hold practices. It, too, gave insight into the national character of the
Greeks, but, in his view, should not be privileged above other aspects
of ancient life. Language was most important for Boeckh as the "means
to recognize almost all the other creations of antiquity." Precise knowl-
edge of Greek was essential to researching other areas of classical life,
but he insisted that philology present the facts and ideas of antiquity
based on "the monuments of language, but without getting stuck on
the interpretation of language itself. ,,78
Linguistics proper was condemned to an ancillary role within
Boeckh's model of classical philology. The field, Boeckh insisted, was
not "identical with the study of language. ,,79 The Encyclopedia and
Methodology treated language as part of a larger section on science and
knowledge, giving a brief history of ancient Greek following other his-
torical sketches of geography, political life, religion, art, and literature.
He described language as "the general organon of knowledge," while
rejecting the rationalism of Hermann. The Greek national tongue was
"the pure expression of all understanding, not only of reason. "so There-
fore philology must explore its forms as part of a larger historical appre-
ciation of classical antiquity. Boeckh deemed it impossible to compose
a universal grammar. Ancient Greek had to be presented "in its devel-
opment through time and space"SI in order to complement a greater
cultural complex. At the same time, Boeckh rejected the proposition
that language determined the content of cognition. The Greeks, in fact,
were the first to establish "dominion over the natural side of lan-
guage, ,,82 regulating variations in sound and abstracting words whose
t1rst meanings were bound to concrete, material artifacts. Language ex-
isted for Boeckh as a "system of signs that change according to the
ideas signified. ,,8.' It was merely an instrument for larger cultural artic-
175
CHAPTER 4
176
URBlLD HELLAS
177
CHAPTER 4
178
URBILD HELLAS
179
CHAPTER 4
180
URBILD HELLAS
181
CHAPTER 4
182
The philhellenist Friedrich Thiersch shortly after his second excursion to
Greece under the Bavarian King Otto I in 1852.
CHAPTER 4
184
URBILD HELLAS
185
CHAPTER 4
186
URBILD HELLAS
tory, and it had greater affinities with northern Europe than Mrica and
the East. The Doric dialect, for example, appeared to him to have a
"northern character," one similar to German. l24
Muller's account of Greek origins fit easily into Orientalist narra-
tives of westward cultural transmission. Like Jacob Grimm, he solicited
comparative-historical philology to assert the autonomy of one group
of supposed Indo-European descendents, claiming the Greek nation
proper, like the first Germans, emerged as an independent entity after
reaching Europe. During the mid-1820s, Muller took a greater inter-
est in language as an indication of nationality and cultural descent, a
new focus that is apparent in a second review Muller published criticiz-
ing Thiersch in 1826. 125 Here Muller identified language, not religion
or art, as the most originary expression of Greek national culture. "As
long as you cannot show us an Egyptian or Phoenician Homer," he
cautioned the "Oriental party," "from which the Greek Homer learned
and borrowed ... the artistry of his plan, the grace of his narrative, and
the sense for beauty in his treatment oflanguage, all of your derivations
of Greek culture from the Orient remain unproductive-you see
mosquitoes and swallow elephants." Centuries before the Greeks had
expressed themselves so eloquently in the visual arts, they had shown
their mastery "over the material of language," a "miracle" that cannot
be explained, Muller believed, "by any kind of Oriental influences and
initiatives. ,,126
The reviews of Greek grammars that Muller published in the
1830s reveal an exceptional fluency in comparative-historical philology
that reflects his close friendship with the Grimm brothers, who moved
to Gbttingen in 1829. 127 Himself familiar with Sanskrit, Hebrew, and
Arabic, Muller rebuked Greek grammarians for not applying the new
philology to classical tongues in an 1836 review of Gottfried Her-
mann's Acta Societatis Graecae. "The original state of most roots, many
derivative forms, and almost all inflections [can] only be . . . deter-
mined . . . by comparative linguistics," he advised his colleagues. 12B
Classical philology had no choice but to honor the new linguistic prin-
ciples: "Philology [must] either give in completely to a historical un-
derstanding of the development of language, of etymological research
on the shape of roots and the organism of grammatical forms or trust
in comparative linguistics as a guide and advisor in these areas. ,,129
Mliller did not, as Martin Bernal has suggested, express reservations
about etymology as a tool for interpreting Greek myths. 130 Rather, he
187
CHAPTER 4
188
URBILD HELLAS
189
CHAPTER 4
190
URBILD HELLAS
cially close affinity with the Hellenes. ,,141 Nevertheless, the distinction
linguists drew between Semitic and "Aryan peoples" proved useful to
Welcker as he debunked "the misconceived derivation of Greek gods
from Egypt" in his Greek Mythology (1857-63), published when the
then blind author was seventy-three. 142
Three years after Welcker's speech, the association welcomed Ger-
man Orientalists as a "special section" of the society. The newcomers
held separate sessions whose minutes did not form part of the official
report. As the statutes of the classicists allowed the conference to ex-
pand to include language study as a whole, the Orientalists' 1843 peti-
tion to join was accepted. In 1850 August Boeckh, serving as president
of the meeting in Berlin, opened the conference by declaring the study
of Greek and Latin grammar can "no longer dismiss its ties to compar-
ative grammar and the Indo-Germanic languages." The new principles
of linguistics were essential for a full appreciation of classical antiquity.
Setting aside the "controversy" over the influence the Levant and espe-
cially Egypt had had on early Greece, Boeckh recalled that knowledge
of Asia was essential to understanding Greece's later history, especially
in light of Persian rule in the Mediterranean. He expressed hope that
in the future a "comparative cultural history of all antiquity" would
emerge in the spirit of "comparative linguistics. ,,14,~
The first student of classical languages fully to adopt comparative
techniques was the Leipzig professor Georg Curti us, younger brother
to Ernst Curtius, the well-known archaeologist and historian who ac-
companied K. O. Muller to Delphi. Born in Lubeck in 1820, Georg
Curtius straddled in his training the best of two worlds. As a student in
Bonn and Berlin, he worked under Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl
(1806-76), Welcker, Lachmann, and Boeckh. Curti us simultaneously
pursued comparative philology with Lassen, A. W. Schlegel, and Franz
Bopp. Mter receiving advanced degrees in the classics, he joined the lin-
guist August Schleicher as a professor of classical philology in Prague,
from whence he eventually reunited with Ritschl in Leipzig in 1861.
Curti us announced in his inaugural lecture "that I have made it the
scholarly mission of my life to set classical philology ... in vital interac-
tion with generallinguistics."I44 And Leipzig was the city in which to do
so. In his twenty-five years there Curtius's followers included Friedrich
Nietzsche, as well as Hermann Osthoff, Karl Brugmann, and Ferdinand
de Saussure. He maintained friendships with the Sanskritists Albrecht
Weber, Adalbert Kuhn, and Ernst Windisch, and lived long enough to
191
CHAPTER 4
192
URBlLD HELLAS
193
CHAPTER 4
194
URBILD HELLAS
everything in the world from the idea of God. ls8 The third section, on
Holy Scripture, claimed one could "speak intelligibly of a language of
the Holy Ghost." "The divine spirit," Rothe wrote, "created from the
language of the people who lived in the place a very peculiar religious
language .... The Greek of the New Testament demonstrates this fact
most clearly. ,,159 This perspective entered into more formal linguistic
studies. The introduction to Hermann Cremer's Biblio-Theological Lex-
icon of New Testament Greek (1866) cited Rothe as a legitimate author-
ity on the language of scripture. 160
Philologists, on the other hand, had been equally irresponsible in
declaring the language of the New Testament to be a special dialect
used by Jews who lived among Greek speakers. The ubiquity of He-
braicisms in Hellenistic Greek suggested to Georg Benedikt Winer
(1789-1858), for example, and briefly to Julius Wellhausen, that the
language was a blend of two tongues, comparable to contemporary
Yiddish. A Protestant theologian in Leipzig, Winer in 1821 applied the
rationalist approach of his colleague Gottfried Hermann to Hellenistic
Greek grammar. His influential Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis pro-
posed that New Testament Greek was a "mixture of the (later) Greek
with the national (Jewish)." Winer proposed to "investigate scientifi-
cally the laws according to which the Jewish writers of the N.T. wrote
the Greek of their time." He noted the influence of a "foreign tongue
(the Hebrew-Aramaean)" and awaited the moment when New Testa-
ment Greek could be compared to the Koine of gentiles. 161
Deissmann did just this, concluding that the real language of the
New Testament was a popular, colloquial Egyptian Greek dating to the
Ptolomaic kings. In his view, Hellenistic Jews had spoken Greek as their
native tongue and only learned Aramaic as a second language; it had
not been a dialect comprehensible only to the elite. 162 Deissmann's ev-
idence was the language used by state officials on stone inscriptions and
the vernacular descriptions of private life preserved on papyrus docu-
ments. Secular Greek from the period of the Septuagint translation of
the Old Testament was, Deismann argued, identical to the "sacred"
Greek of scripture. The "Semitisms" that distinguished the Greek of
the New Testament were common to the vernacular of all Alexandri-
ans. This suggested that earliest Christianity, especially as represented
by Paul, had been a movement of the nonliterary classes.
As was the case with Hebrew, the historicization of New Testa-
195
CHAPTER 4
196
s
Comparative Linguistics
Race, Religion, and Historical Hgenc~, 1830-80
197
CHAPTER 5
198
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
199
CHAPTER 5
200
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
201
CHAPTER 5
202
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
203
CHAPTER 5
·204
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
205
CHAPTER 5
206
The comparative philologist August Friedrich Pott.
CHAPTER 5
208
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
breasts, and she, the mother, embraced them as children."s2 Pott him-
self restricted the term "Aryan" to only one of the five recognized
branches of the Indo-European language family, the Medo- Persian
tongues. 53 He likewise insisted on the disparate origins of Semitic and
Indo- European peoples. Yet Pott was the first comparativist to include
the Sinti and Roma within the family ofIndo-European speakers. The
"gypsies" actually have a much closer connection to India than the de-
scendents of the Goths, having left the Punjab region at the end of the
first millennium AD. In 1844 Pott defended Romany's status as a "real
national language," denying that it was "thieves' Latin" used as a secret
idiom for organizing swindles and robbery. In his view, the language
descended from "the already degenerate forms of popular Indian di-
alects.,,54 Despite its "exceeding bastardization and depravity," it could
take pride in "having blood relations with splendid Sanskrit. ,,55
For many comparativists the decision of whether to apply the
term "Aryan" to the entire family of Indo-European languages or
merely to the Iranian branch hinged on the frequency with which
derivatives of the root "arya" appeared in related languages. The
Genevan scholar Adolphe Pictet, for example, derived the name Ireland
from "arya" and embraced the broader designation in The Origins of
the Indo-Europeans or the Primitive Aryans (1859). August Schleicher
and K. J. Windischmann likewise cited Tacitus's references to the Ger-
manic tribe Arii to justifY calling the entire family "Aryan," while
Friedrich Ruckert's student Paul Lagarde preferred the restricted
meaning. 56 German comparativists directed their attention almost ex-
clusively to the "superior" languages of the Indo-European family.
They rarely found it worthwhile to draw Semitic languages into the
comparison or to examine other language families in detail. By 1890
German linguistics had virtually ceased to lise the term Aryan except to
refer to Indo- Iranian tongues. This restriction was a defensive measure
to protect the language sciences from new fields such as anthropology,
comparative law, and religion, as well as racial theory, which had appro-
priated the term from philologists and expanded its applicability be-
yond words and grammar. 57
By the 1840s actual physiologists had located the general faculty
of language in specialized lobes of the brain. Based on the placement
of lesions in patients who experienced loss of speech, phrenologists
outlined the anatomy of the central nervous system in its supposed re-
lation to the production of language and intelligence. 58 German
209
CHAPTER 5
210
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
211
CHAPTER 5
212
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
213
CHAPTER 5
214
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
215
CHAPTER 5
216
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
in the Veda we may study the childhood, we may study in Kant's cri-
tique the perfect manhood of the aryan mind. ,,100 Having studied Kan-
tian philosophy at the University of Leipzig, Max Muller envisioned
himself extending Hamann's, Herder's, and Humboldt's attempts to
integrate language into a theory of the mind. lol His Science of Thought
(1887) thus proposed that there was "No Reason without Language,
No Language without Reason." Meaning and articulate sound were,
for Max Muller, "two sides" of an indivisible entity such as a coin or an
. pee.I lO2
orange an d Its
Philologists, by implication, could deduce from historical tongues
how the speakers of each had reasoned at a given moment in time. Lan-
guage offered Max Muller an "archives" or "annals" in which the "his-
torical development of the human mind" was preserved. 103 Thus, he
hoped to interpret Indian mythology by reducing "every thought that
crossed the Indian mind" to the "offspring" of some 120 "mother-
ideas," simple concepts or root forms. 104 According to Max Muller, the
original roots of human speech had neither been imitations of natural
sounds (the "bow-wow" theory) nor involuntary interjections (the
"pooh-pooh" theory). Rather, they reflected "inward mental phases.,,105
The Biographies of Words purportedly identified the basic 800 roots of
Sanskrit, just as Ernest Renan isolated 500 original roots in Hebrew.
Transferring linguistic categories to religion was justified, accord-
ing to Max Muller, by the historical role words and metaphors had
played in the emergence of belief. One of the first comparative mythol-
ogists, he assumed that humans had been driven by their natural per-
ception of the infinite in the historical world to name and give voice to
the divine. The growth of words and concepts documented a dialecti-
cal struggle on the part of the mind to transcend the materiality of lin-
guistic expression. As a result, the primary elements of religion were for
Max Muller not rituals, customs, or sacrifices, but words and texts
whose true meaning only etymology could divulge. In his view, for ex-
ample, the tripartite division of languages warranted a parallel classifi-
cation of religious practices. Semitic speakers supposedly presented
God in history; Aryans saw the divine in nature; and the ambiguous
Turanian family worshiped natural and ancestral spirits. 106
Mythology, the first stage of religion, was in Max Muller's famous
formulation a "disease of language. "lO7 The original meaning of roots
had been material, in his view, derived from the impressions speakers
had of their surroundings. But names had a tenuous relationship to the
217
CHAPTER 5
218
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
assured victory in the "struggle ... with the Semitic and Turanian
races. " I l l His linguistic determinism closely resembled a racialist view
of world history, even if it celebrated words and conjugation patterns
rather than the Aryan body.
By the late 1860s German anthropologists had all but rendered
comparative philology irrelevant in discussions of the Aryan race. As
Andrew Zimmerman has argued, nearly all the practices of anthropol-
ogy, centered as they were on the collecting, measuring, and display of
ubjects, originated in a distrust of language and narrative. 113 The head
of the Berlin Anthropological Society, Rudolf Virchow, specifically re-
jected linguistic genealogies as an indication of whether Europeans
were of Aryan descent in "The Overpopulation of Europe" (1874).
Virchow credited Friedrich Max Muller with having divided the conti-
nent's inhabitants into Aryans, Semites, and Turanians. But he feared
only archaeology and the study of pigment and craniums could prevent
"the decision about the ethnological standing of a people" from being
"surrendered to the hands of language scholars." Virchow confined
philologists to making judgments about the political alliances of human
communities and their historical fate. In his view, language revealed
nothing about "blood relations"; it merely "nationalizes and de-na-
tionalizes." To evaluate whether Europeans were of Aryan descent, an-
thropologists had to consider the physiological ideal of the race. In the
mid -1870s Virchow thus solicited the help of schoolteachers in gather-
ing the physical data necessary to classifY the inhabitants of imperial
Germany but neglected considerations of language. I 14
As the definition of the Aryan physical type fell to anthropolo-
gists, Indians were excluded from the family, limiting the term's appli-
cability to a small, original white population. I I, The Aryan homeland
likewise moved further westward to northern Germany itself. The
prospect that Europeans had racial ties to Indian Aryans forced a rever-
sal of the biblical migration narratives that once traced the German an-
cestry back to an Asian Garden of Eden. The British ethnologist Robert
Latham was the first to argue that Sanskrit speakers originated on the
southeastern border of Lithuania in the Baltic regions. His Elements of
Comparative Philology (1862) denied any substantial ties between San-
skrit and the modern languages of India. It was far more likely, in his
view, that one language had traveled east, than that a larger assembly
had departed India. 116 This perspective seemed to be confirmed by the
219
CHAPTER 5
220
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
221
CHAPTER 5
the Societe asiatique de Paris (est. 1822), were available at an early date
in France. l27 Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron (1731-1805) had
supplied the royal library with a stock of manuscripts useful for learning
languages other than Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, and Chinese. 128 Based
on Persian sources, he published in 1771 the first Latin translation of
the Zend-Avesta. This attracted the eye of the Farsi and Arabic scholar
Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838), who in 1793 deciphered the Pahlavi in-
scriptions of the Sassanid kings. When Napoleon declared all English-
men on French soil to be prisoners of war in 1802, Alexander Hamil-
ton, a member of the Asiatick Society of Calcutta was trapped in Paris
and catalogued Sanskrit manuscripts. A French translation of Jones's
Asiatick Researches had appeared in 1803, and Hamilton became a mag-
net for continental Europeans interested in the language. His students
included Friedrich Schlegel and Franz Bopp, but also the first French
Sanskritist, Antoine- Uonard de Chezy (1774-1832), who received the
first European chair in that language at the College de France in 1814.
This generation of French Orientalists was disinclined toward ap-
proaching language comparatively and historically given the persistence
of a national tradition of universal or philosophical grammar. 129 In the
sixteenth century Port-Royal grammarians had evoked language com-
parison while searching for the rational structures of the mind, and
early French Orientalists continued to approach language in this vein.
Silvestre de Sacy, for example, published an essay called Principles of
General Grammar in 1803, issuing reprints in 1810 and 1815. There
was no French equivalent to the massive comparative charts published
in J. C. Adelung's Mithridates(1806). Schlegel's Essay on the Language
and Wisdom of the Indians was not translated into French until 1837.
When France lost three of its founding Orientalists, Fraw;:ois Champol-
lion, Chezy, and J, P. Abel-Reumsat in 1832, the avant-garde of lan-
guage studies had long since passed to German grammarians.
The young Christian Lassen helped transplant the techniques of
comparative-historical philology across the Rhine when he received a
Prussian state grant to study Sanskrit manuscripts in 1824. Under his
guidance, a fellow student of Chezy, Eugene Burnouf (1801-52), ap-
plied German scholarship to Pali, the sacred language of Buddhists in
Sri Lanka and Indochina. Cowritten with Lassen, Burnouf's Essay on
Pdli (1826) argued that the liturgical language had evolved from San-
skrit. The work marked the first application of historical grammar to
222
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
223
CHAPTER 5
224
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
225
CHAPTER 5
226
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
227
CHAPTER 5
Materialist concerns for how the body affected linguistic diversity did
eventually enter the German language sciences. The Jena comparativist
228
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
August Schleicher revived his field's traditional ties to the natural sci-
ences, transforming comparative philology into a discipline he called
Linguistik. Linguistics distinguished itself, in Schleicher's view, as the
Held that "took language as an object." Traditional philology, by con-
trast, approached language as a "means" to "penetrate the spiritual
essence and life of one or more nations." In his conception, language
lay beyond the "free will . . . and determination of the individual."
Thus the laws governing its development fell to the natural, not the his-
torical, sciences. For Schleicher, language was an internally sufficient
system that developed in complete independence of the needs or inten-
tions of its users. The goal of linguists was to document "the reign of
unchanging, natural laws" that the "will and caprice" of human beings
could not alter. J73 The only external explanation for linguistic change
could be found, he believed, in the physiology of linguistic organs.
Like many nineteenth-century linguists, Schleicher began his
studies as a theologian and a liberal. His father, a doctor, had taken part
in the founding of the first Burschenschaft in Jena before moving his
family to Meinigen, Thuringia. Schleicher himself was an active partic-
ipant in the gymnastics movement of the Turner, a vain effort to stave
off the tuberculosis which killed him at age forty-seven. As a theology
student, Schleicher resided in Tiibingen with the local Hegelians.
Switching there to philology, he studied Hebrew, Sanskrit, Arabic, and
Farsi with Heinrich Ewald, who had recently been exiled for his defense
of Hannover's constitution. In 1843 Schleicher took up classical lan-
guages with Friedrich Ritschl and Friedrich Welcker in Bonn. There he
caught the attention of Prince Georg von Sachsen-Meiningen, who
funded two years of travel to Paris, London, and Vienna during the rev-
olutionary years 1848-50. During this time, Schleicher also served as a
foreign correspondent for the Augsbut;ger Allgemeine Zeitung and the
Kolnische Zeitung. His open support of the 1848 Revolutions con-
cerned the Hapsburg police enough to spy on him in Vienna and
Prague. 174 Schleicher's flrst academic post was as a classicist at the
Charles University of Prague. Here he stayed until 1858 when he was
appointed to the University of Jena.
Schleicher started his career collecting fairy tales and folklore in
Lithuania, emerging as the first expert on Slavic languages and situat-
ing them within the larger Indo- European family. As such, he exempli-
fies a new generation of comparative linguists whose specialty lay not in
Sanskrit or Indology. A concern for linguistic genealogies, partly in-
229
CHAPTER 5
230
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
nating languages, including Finnish and Turkish, had only achieved the
second level before entering a historical period of degeneration. lB.'
Schleicher's distinction between the prehistoric and historical pe-
riods oflanguage development did not discourage research into the un-
documented past. On the contrary, Schleicher was the first to recon-
struct a hypothetical ancestor for the Indo-European family. Earlier
philologists had assumed the existence of a mother tongue no longer
extant; Schleicher derived its likely forms from evidence surviving in its
descendents. 184 Comparative charts in his Compendium listed cognate
forms of various words and grammatical patterns as they appeared in
ditTerent languages. At the top of each column, he then added the most
likely reconstructed Urform. So confident was Schleicher in his recon-
structions that in 1868 he published a controversial fable ("The Sheep
and the Steed") in the supposed Indo-European Ursprache. 185 His stu-
dent Johannes Schmidt (1843-1901) exposed this primitive language
as a scientific fiction, suggesting that its components had actually orig-
inated at widely different periods. But later linguists applied the
methodology of reversing patterns of historical development to arrive
at a language's hypothetical origin more successfully.18b
The division of the Indo-European Ursprache into its known de-
scendents preoccupied Schleicher in the early 1850s, and he devised the
influential model of a "family tree" to document their separation. This
idea of a genealogical tree likely came from Ritschl, who was one of the
tirst to study the genealogy of a manuscript tradition in depth.IB? "The
first Divisions of the Indo-Germanic Urvotk" (1853) visually repre-
sented the descent of the language family in the torm of a Stammbaum.
This model was updated twice, once in 1860 and then in 1863 follow-
ing Schleicher's encounter with the genealogical chart Charles Darwin
presented in The Origin of Species (1859). The antiquity of a given lin-
guistic group's departure from the homeland could be measured based
on how far to the east or west it had progressed. 1"8
Linguistic images, such as Schleicher's family tree, preceded and
intluenced the pattern of branching genealogical descent that Darwin
and other natural scientists adopted in the 1860s.1 89 Philologists wel-
comed the model as well, but with greater reservation. The family tree
most effectively depicts the diffusion of languages over distances that
completely sever speakers from each other geographically, as in the evo-
lution of South African Afrikaans from Dutch. In most cases the divi-
sion of languages is a gradual process. Yet Schleicher's diagram sug-
231
CHAPTER 5
232
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
ture," Schleicher stated, "They have never been directed by the will of
man; they rose, and developed themselves according to defInite laws;
they grew old and died out. ,,193 Even within the historical period, Schle-
icher concluded, the process of language degeneration "lies ... equally
beyond the free determination of will." The regularity of "erosion"
across the spectrum of national tongues could only be explained by the
"uniform constitution" of human "speech organs." The sole influence
speakers had on language was in the area of syntax and stylistics. 1~4
Many German linguists accepted Schleicher's aligning their field
with the natural sciences while qualifYing his treatment of language as
an autonomous organism. Friedrich Max Muller, for example, main-
tained that linguistics was a physical science comparable to geology. His
first lecture in the Science of Language (1861) supported Schleicher's
detaching the field from the historical sciences based on the claim that
it was "not in the power of man" to produce or prevent language
change. 195 At the same time, Max Muller considered it "sheer mythol-
ogy" to speak oflanguage "as a thing by itself, as living a life of its own,
as growing to maturity, producing offspring, and dying away." The
human soul was the "soil" without which a language did not grow.
What he termed the "natural growth of language" was determined by
two forces: phonetic decay and dialectic regeneration. Neither of these
was "under the control of man," nor "produced by an inward principle
of growth."I96
In the 1860s Schleicher tied language change more consistently
to the physiology of speakers' bodies. An encounter with Darwinian
theory reinforced his turn to materialism. Schleicher received a German
translation of The Origins of Species in 1863 from the young Ernst
Haeckel (1834-62), then an associate professor of zoology at the
Friedrich Schiller University ofJena. He responded with a letter dedi-
cated to Haeckel that evaluated "Darwinism Tested by the Science of
Language" (1863). Schleicher found evidence in Darwin's work that
biology and linguistics were converging. This implied, on the one
hand, that Darwinian notions of descent and the struggle for existence
applied to languages and language groups. According to Schleicher,
"Arian" tongues were "the conquerors in the struggle for existence."
Competition in the "field of human speech" allowed for "compara-
tively few ta.vored races"; they had "already supplanted or dethroned
numerous other idioms," causing the "extinction of a vast multi-
tude.,,197 On the other hand, Schleicher believed evolutionary biology
233
CHAPTER 5
234
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
235
CHAPTER 5
236
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
Law on the Germanic sound shifts. Verner demonstrated that the posi-
tion of the accent in Indo-European words was responsible for the
seemingly irregular behavior of the spirants resulting from the first Ger-
manic sound shift; whether the spirant remained voiceless or became
voiced was predictable. 211
However, Osthoff and Brugman did urge linguists not to endow
the origins of a language with the formative powers. Neogrammarians
preferred to research the "most recent phases" of the Indo-European
languages, as well as the "living vernaculars." Only this would clear the
methodological "fog" that a focus on archaic origins had produced. To
understand historical change, the pair insisted, linguists must "step out
of the murky hypothetical atmosphere of the workshop on which the
base Indo-Germanic forms are forged and into the clear air of tangible
reality and the present.,,212 They criticized previous comparativists, in-
cluding Schleicher, for concentrating on the "purely hypothetical" re-
construction of the Indo-European "base forms." The focus on origins
and linguistic prehistory was an inadequate basis for achieving "a cor-
rect notion of the way language develops. ,,213 Texts, such as Wilhelm
Scherer's On the History of the German Language (1868) likewise
shifted scholars' attention from the written letter to the spoken word.
Phonetics and dialectology were gateways to what the Neogrammari-
ans termed the physiology of sound.
For Neogrammarians, the regularity of sound change derived
from the consistency of speakers' physical and psychological responses
to language. How speakers "appropriated the language inherited from
their ancestors," as well as how consciousness "reproduced and modi-
fied sound images" were "essentially the same at all times.,,214 This
made it possible, according to Osthoff and Brugman, to investigate
barely documented periods oflinguistic history. The "principle of anal-
ogy" could be used to project patterns oflinguistic change backward in
time. There was no reason to assume that the "physical activities" peo-
ple engaged in when "adopting, reproducing, and gradually changing"
inherited forms was "in past centuries substantially different" than in
the present. 2l5 In 1880 the Neogrammarian Hermann Paul conceded
that the expectation of sOllnd laws being exception less could only be a
"working hypothesis." Osthoff and Brugman's claim had to be rela-
tivized. Nevertheless, the school retained the focus on sound laws as
the only "pillars" that could provide the field of linguistics with "solid
ground under foot.,,216
237
CHAPTER 5
238
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS
239
G
241
CHAPTER 6
list of eager flies on the wall. Claude Levi-Strauss, Michel Foucault, and
other structuralists and poststructuralists built upon the way Nietzsche
and Saussure used language to critique knowledge, subjectivity, and
forms of social interaction. Could the talented students have enter-
tained these authors so early in their careers? A rising star in classical
philology, Nietzsche had yet to repudiate a tradition that many schol-
ars have seen as a mere obstacle on the path to philosophy. A prodigy
among the Neogrammarians, Saussure had recently published a highly
regarded, radically historical study that reconstructed the vowel system
of Proto-Indo-European. Neither scholar had yet assumed the guise
most familiar to the twentieth century. Is the Leipzig connection purely
coincidental? To what extent did the encounter with comparative Ger-
man philology propel Nietzsche and Saussure on their respective intel-
lectual trajectories?
This chapter situates the work of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-
1900) and Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) at the culmination of
a century of reflecting on the autonomous powers of language. Their
vision of words constructing the very subjects that spoke them repre-
sents an extension of earlier concerns for how national tongues shaped
culture and community. Comparativists once attributed an authorita-
tive role to origins and an inner principle of growth when considering
how language shaped thought and identity. Both Nietzsche and Saus-
sure challenged the origin paradigm, while subjecting speakers to a new
set of linguistic demands. Their respective theories of language re-
sponded to a crisis of historicism that a predominance of organic
metaphors had spawned among German-trained scholars. Late nine-
teenth-century linguists had difficulty explaining sound change over
time, especially after August Schleicher detached language from human
communities and discounted the illusive Volksgeist as a motor oflinguis-
tic change. Seeking other causes behind the evolution of national
tongues, his successors reintroduced speakers and drew on the princi-
ples of psychology to explain the regularity of linguistic development.
This shift encouraged analysis of the unconscious desires and drives
that influenced language production. It also favored general theories of
language use and the systematic description of how an idiom operates
at a given time regardless of its origins and past history.
The chapter opens with the broader political context in which
speculative psychology entered the field of linguistics, suggesting that a
reconsideration of speakers did not resurrect faith in their agency and
242
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
243
CHAPTER 6
244
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
245
CHAPTER 6
246
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
247
CHAPTER 6
identification. The potato, for example, was now a symbol of Irish na-
tionality, but there was no causal relationship between nutrition it pro-
vided and the Irish national spirit. 26
This perspective enabled Lazarus and Steinthal to express their
loyalty as German nationals while still preserving a self-consciously Jew-
ish identity. In a lecture titled "What Is Natiunal?" held before the
Hochschule fur die Wissenschaft des Judentums in December 1880,
Lazarus specitlcally rejected "all blood and racial theory" as "the over-
flow of a grossly sensual materialism. ,,27 His reflections were provoked
by the anti-Semitic speeches the Prussian court preacher Alfred Stocker
held the same year to draw workers away from social democracy.
Lazarus countered that nationality consisted solely in the subjective
identification an individual felt for a community; it was facilitated by
language, but also through education, art, law, and statecraft.
Emphasizing the discursive function of the national tongue res-
onated with the conception of language once favored by the dynastic
states of central Europe. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth cen-
turies, language had been of concern to officials only to the extent that
vernaculars presented a potential barrier to effective administration.
However, statisticians like Richard Bockh (1824-1907), who argued in
Lazarus and Steinthal's journal for the necessity of the state's surveying
linguistic practices, were instrumental in creating a new ufficial correla-
tion between language and nationality in Prussia. Starting in 1817 and
1828 Prussia began gathering statistics in its eastern provinces to deter-
mine how many people could not use German in public venues and re-
ligious services. 28 The grandson of the classicist August Boeckh assisted
in evaluating the findings of Prussia's first comprehensive linguistic sur-
vey in 1861, serving as the director of Berlin's statistical office from
1875 to 1902.
Bockh's essay "The Statistical Importance of the Volkssprache as a
Mark of Nationality" (1866) argued that the mother tongue was "the
true criterion of nationality. ,,29 In his view, a shared mother tongue fos-
tered the common consciousness which united members of the nation;
it also provided a necessary instrument of communication. Bockh re-
jected a wide array of factors as inconclusive evidence of national affili-
ation. These included political loyalties, geographical location, and tra-
ditions of law, dress, customs, food, domestic life, as well as intellectual
and cultural achievements. "Physique" and "signs of descent" were also
irrelevant, in his view. Language alone was the "true pillar of national-
248
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
ity.,,30 From Bockh's perspective, Jews were thus full members of the
German nation, Yiddish being a German dialect comparable to Saxon
or Frisian."
Censuses of the type Bockh recommended encouraged a linguis-
tic definition of nationhood among a wide swath of Prussian citizens.
The modern administrative state was, as Eric Hobsbawn suggests, com-
plicit in fostering popular nationalism and suggesting the viability of
language as a political instrument:12 By 1866, the year of the decisive
Prussian victory over Austria, increased exposure to standardized Ger-
man in schools and an expansion of the literary market had familiarized
the educated middle class and the petit bourgeoisie with the notion of
a national language. As Claus Ahlzweig writes, a series of lectures,
brochures, and popular publications indicate that broad segments of
the population had embraced a nationalist ideology of the mother
tongue by the time of German unification in 1871. 33 As this occurred,
the linguistic definition of German nationhood ceased to bc the
purview of a progressive and liberal opposition and was drawn into a
broader-based conservative nationalism.
Under Otto von Bismarck, the German Empire initially refrained
from defining nationhood in ethnocultural terms, fearing that this
might jeopardize the integrity of Germany's fragile borders. The indi-
vidual states retained purview over linguistic matters. 34 Nevertheless,
Prussia itself did steer the politics of language in its eastern provinces.
As part of the KulturkampJ, Bismarck imposed the first restrictions on
the use of Polish. In 1872-73 German became the compulsory lan-
guage of instruction for all subjects in elementary schools in Upper
Silesia and West Prussia, and for all subjects except religion in Posnan.
He declared German the sole language of public life in 1876. These
measures did not aim at Germanizing Poles but at winning over the
loyalty of peasants and the emerging Polish middle class by weakening
the influence of the nobility and clergy.35 In 1908 a new imperial law
concerning societies (Reichsvereinsgesetz) made German the required
language of all assemblies and associations, as an attempt to regulate
and censor nationalists in the east. Alsace- Lorraine received special ex-
emption to permit French as an official second language of assemblies
in its districts. 36
By the Wilhelmine period, language had emerged as a driving
force in the type of radical (viilkisch) nationalism that brought the state
closer to an expansionist and ethnocultural definition of nationhood. As
249
CHAPTER 6
Roger Chickering has shown, the German Language Association,
founded in 1885 by Hermann Riegel, resembled other patriotic soci-
eties of the period, including the Pan-German League and the German
Colonial Society.37 Attracting a membership of 34,280 by 1914, the or-
ganization dedicated itself to "strengthening the general national con-
sciousness of the German people, ,,38 using its journal and popular
Verdeutschungsbucher (Germanizing books) to help "purifY" the mother
tongue. The association won the support of powerful agencies, success-
fully convincing ministries, local government offices, and professional
associations to rid their vocabulary of Anglicisms. At stake, Chickering
suggests, was the question of whose language would symbolize, express,
mediate, and constitute the German national experience. The -associa-
tion drew from the ranks of the educated Protestant middle class, pub-
lic employees and university graduates wishing to assert their cultural
leadership:w
In the 1890s a radical faction of the association made language
central to an overtly racialist definition of a Pan-Germanic Urvolk.
Founded by the purist Adolf Reinecke in 1896, Heimdall: Journal for
Pure Germandom and Pan-Germandom embraced language as the most
important criterion for membership in the German race. The publica-
tion was named for the third son of Wotan and cited J. G. Fichte when
declaring German to be an especially pure Ursprache. Radical German-
izers, such as Reinecke and Hermann von Pfister-Schwaighusen, tried
to "correct" their native tongue and the conventions with which it was
written by appealing to archaic forms. Runes, for example, were to be
used in all ceremonial occasions. 40 Reinecke likewise drew on linguistic
research to legitimate territorial expansion, seeking to include all Ger-
man speakers within a larger Reich. Like other radical nationalists of the
period, adherents to this movement were decidedly anti-Semitic. And
they appealed to the supposed precedent of early nineteenth-century
philologists to justifY their perverted policies.
This radical form of linguistic nationalism, which forced the ac-
quisition of colonies and fueled German militarism, claimed continuity
with a Romantic conception of the Volk. However, it represents a nos-
talgic and artificial revival of ideas once mustered to challenge the le-
gitimacy of the dynastic state. Individuals within the comparatively lib-
eral and Enlightened field of linguistics had long since questioned
whether a binding relationship existed between language, nationhood,
and ethnic or racial descent. Within the vOikisch ideology of Wil-
250
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
251
The comparative linguist Heymann Steinthal in the year he published
the edited works of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1884). From Ingrid Belke,
ed. Moritz Lazarus und Heymann Steinthal: Die Begrunder der
Volkerpsychologie in ihren Briefen (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1983).
(Courtesy Leo Baeck Institute, New York)
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
253
CHAPTER 6
254
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
255
CHAPTER 6
256
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
ranked national tongues based on the degree to which they had per-
fected an inner form. One could test "the power of language to con-
dense, as well as its efficacy in fostering nimble, versatile and ... clear
thought," he believed, by studying the "imperfect languages of wild
people" in which the process of abstraction "remained unfinished. ,,75
Most peoples, Stein thai proposed, had a "compulsion to express the
content of thought ever more precisely." This impulse created the for-
mal elements of language. Inflection, isolation, and agglutination were
for him the "different effects of psychological drives, various external-
izations of the diverse means to imagine the self. ,,76 But such distinc-
tions only emerged at a relatively advanced stage in a nation's history.
Some peoples still presided over prehistoric languages that had never
perfected an inner form. Steinthal divided the world's tongues into two
main groupings: "languages with forms" which include the Indo- Eu-
rope an and Semitic families, as well as Egyptian and Basque, and
"formless languages" such as Chinese, Turkish, Finnish, and Mongo-
lian, and also Native American, Polynesian, and African languages. The
fully matured languages of the Indo- European family "adapted most
readily to the forms of self-conscious thought-activity"r their grammar
structures separated categories of being and doing and distinguished
content from form. By contrast, Steinthal's case study The Mende-
Negro Languages, Presented Psychologically and Phonetically (1867) of-
fered a profile of the "primitive" mind, as it grouped the Mende, Vai,
Susu, and Bambara languages of northwestern Sudan into one family.78
The powers Steinthal attributed to language reinforced its auton-
omy as a constructive force that molded the inner life of subjects and
their experience of the world. National tongues, in his view, created
"their forms independently of logic in absolute autonomy. ,,79 There
were no external standards of rationality for evaluating the adequacy of
linguistic representations. "Autonomy reigns in language," he argued
in 1871, "it can create and transform ... spontaneously ... : thus it is
everywhere and above all in control; and no logic claims the right to
made demands of it. "so Nor was language responsible for accurately
mirroring an empirical world. National tongues depicted objects "en-
tirely and exclusively based on their own laws ... which arise from the
nature of their own goals and means, and are not dictated by the ob-
jects being represented."~l One could only measure the strength of a
language's life force. "Iflanguage is autonomous," Steinthal reckoned,
257
CHAPTER 6
"its excellence only lies in letting this autonomy govern with proper
force; the force of a language's autonomy is the objective measure of its
excellence. ,,82
Cognition thus depended for Steinthal on an autonomous
medium which unconscious instincts had endowed with independent
drives and desires. In his view national tongues had their origin in the
pre-rational soul and only mistakenly had been linked to logic or a
prelinguistic form of rationality. Language was neither bound to ab-
stract metaphysical structures nor to the objects and ideas it repre-
sented. As a result, the unconscious held sway over conceptual thought,
and human subjects never achieved complete sovereignty over discur-
sive practices. Steinthal's fusion of psychology and linguistics likewise
highlighted the general conditions governing the life of language. He
contributed to the dehistoricization of language study by depicting na-
tional tongues as the products of universal laws regulating conscious-
ness. B3 Rather than document specific historical transformations in the
grammar or lexicon of languages, he speculated on the general condi-
tions of language production. Language, in Steinthal's definition, was
the verbal expression of the soul's inner life. He further divided the
speech act into three elements (the "capacity for language," the "phys-
iological ability to produce articulated sounds," and "linguistic mate-
rial"),84 from which Waltraud Bumann has suggested Ferdinand de
Saussure derived his tripartite distinction of language, langue, and pa-
role. B'
258
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
precedent for discussing how words and grammar molded the mind.
Nietzsche embraced the discipline's constructivist view of language
while making a radical critique of genealogy, and the origin paradigm,
occasion for unmasking the creative powers of language.
Born in the small village of Rocken twenty miles from Leipzig, the
young Friedrich Nietzsche followed a well-trod nineteenth-century
path of defection from theology to philology. After attending the pres-
tigious Schulpforta boarding school on a scholarship, Nietzsche initially
pursued the career of his late father. When philology brought on in
Nietzsche a crisis of faith, he transferred to Leipzig to begin classical
studies with Friedrich Ritschl, quickly rising as a star student. Nietzsche
came to regard language as a philosophical problem during the initial
moments of his disaffection with classical philology. As Federico Ger-
ratana has shown, the restless doctoral student took increasing notice of
the natural scientific dimensions of linguistics and its model of language
during his last years in Leipzig. 87 Nietzsche's notes from the brief period
of his military service in 1867-68 list Steinthal's Philology, History, and
Psychology in their Mutual Relations (1864) and Curtius's lectures as
important counterparts to August Boeckh's encyclopedia of philology.
According to Gerratana, the pretensions linguistics had to being a nat-
ural science offered Nietzsche an escape from what he regarded as the
pitfalls of historical knowledge. The methodology of linguistics stood in
sharp contrast to the intuitive, individual character of philological inter-
pretation. "Amazing is the progress of comparative philology," Nietz-
sche noted in his journal. xx An "all too strong subjectivity" had spread
like an "epidemic" through classical studies. A "natural sci. understand-
ing of the essence oflanguage," would, in Nietzsche's view, allow for a
"natural sci. manner of contemplating antiquity."s9
By the late 1860s language appeared to Nietzsche as a key to in-
vestigating the human condition. The "most beautiful triumph" of
comparative philology, in his view, was its "philosophical perspective. ,,90
The field encouraged observers to "step back toward the beginnings of
all culture ... and seek a path to the problems of thought. ,,91 "It must
be a philosopher," he suggested in a notebook entry, "who concerns
himself with it [language]. ,,92 Specifically, Nietzsche believed that a sci-
entific approach to language would enable a "description of instinctive
life, its laws, etc. ,,93 His inaugural lecture at the University of Basel,
therefore, described the field of language studies as "one portion his-
tory, a portion natural science, and a portion aesthetics." The scientific
259
CHAPTER 6
260
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
261
CHAPTER 6
In contrast to epics and the opera, the content of words and concepts
did not threaten the musicality of these verbal art forms. 107 Nietzsche
especially believed that the dramatic dithyrambs of Greek antiquity,
choric poems or chants sung by revelers in honor of Dionysus, were
musical mirrors of the cosmos. Like the chorus in Attic tragedy, lyric
poetry allowed for a "mysterious marriage "IOH of the worlds of will and
appearance. Its Apollonian language made music visible. Words recalled
in the tone of the speaker the primordial "oneness of nature" without
collapsing into empty concepts and content.
In his Romantic desire to tap into a lost world of will and desire,
the early Nietzsche revealed a veneration for intact origins that resem-
bled the nostalgic genealogies of earlier philologists. The Birth of
Tragedy mythologized the Ursprache as both a formative and redemp-
tive force in the development of German national culture. Ancient
Greece and its linguistic practices offered Nietzsche an idealized model
for strengthening the new nation-state. He feared that modern Ger-
many was "caught in the net of Alexandrian culture,,109 to the extent
that the prestige assigned to knowledge and conscious intelligence was
having a corrosive influence on instinctual life. The "imminent rebirth
of Greek antiquity" would allow the "German genius" to free itself
from "the leading strings of Romance culture." I 10 The tradition ofGer-
man philosophy and, especially, of German music from Bach to
Beethoven and Wagner, promised a "gradual reawakening of the
Dionysiac spirit." III This retrospective on Greek culture was framed
within a larger Indo-European context. Greek mythology, Nietzsche
noted, especially the tale of Prometheus, was "indigenous to the entire
community of Aryan races." Tragic vision and the heroic striving to-
ward universality was an Aryan ambition, diametrically opposed to the
passive, feminine, Semitic myth of the fal1. 112
The relative optimism of the Birth of Tragedy evaporated with
Nietzsche's denial in the winter of 1872-73 that one could resurrect an
absolute language of representation. Music, he concluded, was not the
language of nature that directly expressed the Ur-eine. Nor could the
artist convincingly construct such a world artificially. This change re-
flects Nietzsche's break with Richard Wagner, but also a new sensitiv-
ity to the rhetorical dimension of human expression. ll3 While preparing
a lecture course called "The History of Greek Eloquence" he lost faith
in the representational function of language. Words had no preexisting
referents in an authentic realm of existence; their artistic qualities ex-
262
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
isted alone for their own pleasure and purposes. This perspective al-
tered the expectations Nietzsche held out for origins. No longer a for-
mative moment of truth which endured despite the vagaries of time,
the origin of language highlighted the total caprice of concepts.
One of the main sources for Nietzsche's depiction of ancient
rhetoric was Gustav Gerber's Language as Art (1871). The text pre-
sented a history of German language philosophy from Hamann,
Herder, Humboldt, Bernhardi, and Grimm through Max Muller,
Steinthal, and Lazarus. Nietzsche's linguistic critique of epistemology
clearly built upon the inspiration of the Metakritiker. Gerber had
wished to mesh the observations of comparative philology with August
Boeckh's concern for the '''artistic use' of languagc"-rhctoric, aes-
thetics, and poetics. 114 He developed "what Kant began to examine as
the 'critique of pure reason' ... as a critique of impure reason, what
has become objective, thus as a critique of language. ,,115 This project
necessitated, in Gerber's view, first and foremost an analysis of the
"artistic character of language.,,116 Agreeing with Heymann Steinthal,
he suggested that any discussion must derive the origin of language
from "the nature of man.,,117 Only for Gerber living language was an
unconscious creation of the Kunsttrieb, specifically, or the instinct for
art. For Nietzsche this perspective undermined the claim that knowl-
edge and ethical systems, built as they were on conceptual language, ac-
tually referenced stable, preexisting universal principles.
"On Truth and Lying in an Extra-Moral Sense" (1873) devel-
oped the intellectual implications of language originating in an artistic
impulse. Nietzsche opened the essay by questioning why human beings
had such an intense "desire for truth" given that their perspective on
the world was as provincial as the gnat's. He argued that the "legisla-
tion of language" had established the "first laws of truth" in a fit of de-
ception.llB People had trusted the unstable foundations of language be-
cause the very idea of truth enabled them to escape a bellicose state of
nature. Only by regarding language as an "adequate expression of all
realities,,1l9 was reliable communication possible. Accepting the illusion
that words referred to things allowed early humans to live in mutual
trust and security. The invention of truth thus had "pleasant, life-pre-
serving consequences.,,120 Society, however, thereby exchanged a set of
lies for the truth. Deception and false representation acquired a norma-
tive moral value, which Nietzsche exposed as self-destructive.
Faith in truth depended for Nietzsche on a process of forgetting.
263
CHAPTER 6
People had to deny and repress the actual origins of language in order
to believe in the accuracy of representations, for acknowledging the
rhetorical foundation of words would have destabilized the shaky edi-
fice of truth. Nietzsche's critique of representational language assumed
that "language itself is the result of purely rhetorical arts." The artistic
impulses that transformed nerve stimuli into images and these into
sounds and words were dominated by metaphors and arbitrary trans-
ferences. The origin of language was therefore not "a logical pro-
cess. ,,121 The relationship of a word to its referent was always partial,
transferable, and reversible, subject to three tropes: synecdoche,
metaphor, and metonymy.122 Signs, for this reason, were arbitrary, not
"correspond[ing] at all to the original entities." The sounds that stood
for the image of an object or idea were "based as little as rhetoric is
upon that which is true, upon the essence of things." Language "des-
ignate[d] only the relations of things to men."m Things in themselves
did not pass into consciousness, but "the manner in which we stand to-
ward them. ,,124
Language, consequently, could never instruct speakers about the
true nature of objects. It could only convey a subjective impulse. The
lectures on rhetoric offer an early formulation of Nietzsche's perspec-
tivism, or the notion that full and essential knowledge of the world can-
not be had. 125 One could only ever encounter the partial images that
nerve impulses made of objects. On this basis Nietzsche concluded that
truth was nothing but "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, an-
thropomorphisms," "in short, a sum of human relations which were
poetically and rhetorically heightened, transferred, and adorned, and
after long use seem solid, canonical, and binding to a nation. Truths are
illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions." 126
Abstract language was most guilty of perpetuating the illusion of truth.
Concepts, Nietzsche asserted, claimed the greatest scientific authority
while repressing most violently their origins in rhetoric. 127
Nietzsche took greatest issue with the continued social sanction
of these illusions and the life-denying implications this had for the in-
dividual. In his view, society imposed a moral obligation to be "truth-
ful" and uphold established metaphors. To lie collectively became
mandatory for everyone. And people soon did so unconsciously. An ed-
ifice of false concepts acquired the "rigid regularity of a Roman colum-
barium," according to Nietzsche, and this increasingly detached human
beings from "the concrete world of primary impressions. ,,128 Constantly
264
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
265
CHAPTER 6
266
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
unleash its power. Once guided by a soul, human subjects felt an un-
natural moral responsibility to curtail their natural aggression. Nietz-
sche insisted that "no such agent exists"; there was no being behind the
doing. Instead, the "dupe oflinguistic habits" had naturalized the illu-
sion that an autonomous subject lurked behind every action. This
sleight of hand gave the "appearance of free choice. ,,142
The Genealogy of Morals specifically exposed as a linguistic fiction
the desire to submit to self-imposed responsibility or "guilt" (Schuld).
The moral category of bad conscience or duty had emerged, in Nietz-
sche's view, from the economic sphere of contracts and legal obliga-
tions. 14 .1 All feelings of obligation had their inception in material debts
( Schulden). When a person became unable to meet his obligations, he
had once been expected to offer compensation in the form of bestow-
ing pleasure. Powerful creditors had enjoyed watching the weak suffer
pain; the economic contract served as a legal warrant to exercise cru-
e1ty.144 Denied the opportunity to impose pain on others, the weak di-
267
CHAPTER 6
268
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
STRUCTURALIST LINGUISTICS:
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE
269
CHAPTER 6
inated the allure origins and diachronic change held for his followers.
At any given moment in history, language appeared to Saussure as an
autonomous system of signification whose laws operated without the
knowing participation of speakers. Signs, in his view, were arbitrary so
that speakers lacked a stable foundation for intervening in the language
state that confronted them. Like Nietzsche, Saussure denied the exis-
tence of stable external referents in either the material or metaphysical
world. In his view signs represented nothing more than a series of rela-
tional values determined by structures internal to the language system
itself. For this reason the idea of a self-determining speaking subject
was merely an illusion conjured by a false sense of language having ex-
ternal referents.
Saussure's synchronic approach to linguistics is frequently seen as
a radical departure from the past. His Course on General Linguistics
(1916) often assumes iconic status as a "zero hour" in intellectual his-
tory, a new point of departure for twentieth-century structuralists. 163
And it certainly inspired a new style of humanistic inquiry. In his inau-
gural lecture to the College de France in 1961, the anthropologist
Claude Levi-Strauss recognized Saussure as the founder of a new sci-
ence of signs or semiotics that had applications across the human sci-
ences. IM Historians of linguistics, however, rightly maintain the neces-
sity of situating Saussure within the German tradition of comparative
philology. 165 He trained under the Neogrammarians in Leipzig, exhibit-
ing an extraordinary talent for historical linguistics before transferring
his energies to the general study of language.
Saussure's interest in synchronic linguistics evolved gradually out
of his comparative-historical studies. There was no abrupt moment of
conversion nor any dramatic defection from the German field. In fact,
other linguists trained in the same milieu questioned the origin
paradigm at the same time. In the last quarter of the nineteenth cen-
tury, the inability to explain language change over time drew the atten-
tion of some Neogrammarians, for example, to the role of the speaker.
Saussure adapted aspects of the methodology Hermann Paul presented
in his Principles of the History of Language, building on a critique of his-
torical-mindedness internal to the Neogrammarian movement itself.
Philologists outside of Germany, such as the American William Dwight
Whitney (1827-94), also explored problems of language use, rather
than continuing to regard language as an independent organism with
its own internal mechanisms of growth. This attention to the role of
270
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
271
CHAPTER 6
272
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
tution, or part of human culture. ,,170 Words did not have a life of their
own, in his view; rather, language was a conventional tool of commu-
nication that speakers tailored toward their own purposes.
The great faux pas of German linguistics, according to Whitney,
was a propensity to eliminate the speaker from discussions of language
change. As he wrote in the Life and Growth of Language (1875), his
colleagues wrongly "den[ied] the agency of the human will in the
changes of speech. ,,171 Instead they relied on a "mysterious natural pro-
cess, in which men have no part," assuming that there were "organic
forces in speech itself which-by fermentation, or digestion, or crystal-
lization ... produce new material and alter old. ,,172 Whitney countered
that "individual minds, capable of choice, under wide-reaching motives
and inducements" produced language change. 173 The intervention of
conscious human will altered the linguistic framework inherited by a
given community. This change in perspective followed from Whitney's
declaring language to be the "most ancient and valuable of man's so-
cial institutions. ,,174 No longer an autonomous organism with its own
internal laws of development, language was a tool subject to human
needs and desires. An elaborate system of arbitrary signs allowed speak-
ers to communicate preexisting ideas and coordinate their actions; lan-
guage was a pragmatic instrument. Any little "bit oflinguistic growth,"
Whitney concluded, was "the act of a human being, working toward
definable ends under the government of recognizable motives. ,,175
Whitney challenged the very foundations of German linguistics,
and the Neogrammarians heard his call. August Leskien translated the
Life and Growth of Language in 1876, and the text had a significant im-
pact on the Leipzig circle. I76 The commemoration Brugmann wrote
upon Whitney's death, for example, credited the American with help-
ing German I ndo- Europeanists to "turn against a number of widely
spread methodological flaws in the[ ir] research. ,,177 Saussure noted
Whitney'S influence on his own development in several manuscript
pages. And Konrad Koerner has concluded that Whitney was a major
source for Saussure's conceiving of language as a social system. Whit-
ney suggested that understanding language change required exploring
the relationship between the individual and the speech community. He
likewise affirmed that language could be conceived as a totality and in-
troduced Saussure to the term "value" and to the distinction between
substance and form .I7B
273
CHAPTER 6
274
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
275
CHAPTER 6
276
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
277
CHAPTER 6
278
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
279
CHAPTER 6
280
SPEAKERS AND SUBJECTIVITY
281
CHAPTER 6
283
CONCLUSION
novative critics it had itself produced. German scholars did not fail to
recognize the significance of Saussure as a linguistic theorist. The
Course on General Linguistics was immediately reviewed and often cited
in German literature; it was even assimilated into interwar neo- Kantian
"organicist" linguistics. 4 Yet the sober, methodological form of struc-
turalism that took root in Germany was often dismissed as a continua-
tion of positivism and thus lacking in social significance. 5 German crit-
ics treated Saussure with "indifference" and displayed little sensitivity
toward the methodological implications of structuralist principles, pre-
ferring a historical approach to language. 6 Not until 1931 was the
Course actually translated into German. Discussion of Saussure as a
foundational thinker was far more prevalent in Geneva, Copenhagen,
and Prague than in German cities and universities. German linguists
generally assumed that structuralism broke away from a native tradition
of linguistic investigation that grew out of Herder, Humboldt, and
Grimm. In their view, the characteristically French focus on language as
a tool of communication was more amenable to structuralism than the
German appreciation of language as a living force uniting members of
the Vole In truth, a German tradition of linguistic thought had at least
in part produced Saussure after itself challenging the primacy of the
Volksgeist as a mechanism for explaining change over time.
Nietzsche's evocation of language in the dismantling of illusory
systems of truth and totality likewise found little reception among his
German devotees. The fin-de-siecle German avant-garde enlisted
Nietzsche in salvationist projects of cultural and political redemption
very distinct from the deconstructive visions of later followers. In the
early twentieth century Nietzsche inspired transvaluative programs of
regeneration designed to overcome an impending sense of nihilism.
This focus on creative, positive reconstruction precluded serious en-
gagement with Nietzsche's canonical texts on language. s The philo-
sophical implications of his linguistic work did not gain a more serious
audience for another fifty years. Under the custodianship of Elisabeth
Forster-Nietzsche, Nietzsche's early legacy was also annexed by the
most extreme, anti-Semitic members of the po/kisch, eugenicist, and
A1ldeutsch nationalist movements. These circles ironically transformed
Nietzsche into a prophet of Aryan racism and a purified and de-Ju-
daized German Christianity: The alternative concepts of language of-
fered by Saussure and Nietzsche found far greater resonance among so-
284
CONCLUSION
285
CONCLUSION
286
CONCLUSION
287
CONCLUSION
288
CONCLUSION
289
CONCLUSION
290
CONCLUSION
scious, buried, yet universal mental structures that made thought pos-
sible and upon which lived experience, culture, and society were built.
These hidden structures were believed to constitute an independently
existing order of reality, and their laws could be known with scientific
precision. To this end, Saussure's understanding of the language system
provided a model. Levi-Strauss thus believed the structures of kinship
systems, totems, and myths mimicked language; Roland Barthes as-
serted in 1964 that all sign systems were already language systems; and
Jacques Lacan conceived of the unconscious as being structured like a
language. Following Saussure, structuralists envisioned these complex
systems existing as a network of relationships that united and linked
their various elements. Nothing in the system had an intrinsic meaning
or identity; the significance of any given item was determined relation-
ally among other elements, and the meaning of signs could be deter-
mined objectively. What a given sign designated was thus less important
than how it fit into a larger symbolic order.
This perspective resulted in a self-conscious departure from a tra-
ditional "humanist" appreciation of subjectivity and historicity, espe-
cially as most recently represented in French existential phenomenol-
ogy. In the context of postfascist and postcollaborationist Europe, the
notion of an autonomous, unified subject capable of choice and self-de-
termination had been a powerful mechanism for grappling with ques-
tions of responsibility. Structuralism undermined the idea of a transcen-
dental subject capable of perpetual self-fashioning and privileged
knowledge, countering that deep linguistic processes actually con-
structed the self at a level beneath consciousness. For this reason, the
advent of structuralism has often been linked to a conservative turn in
French intellectual life and in French politics under Charles de Gaulle's
Fifth Republic. Disenchanted with political activism, the reality of Rus-
sian communism, and any new ideological commitments, intellectuals
gravitated to what Levi-Strauss called a cooler temporality of rules,
codes, and structures. 41 Structuralism offered disengagement from ex-
istential Marxism's model of the committed intellectual. For this rea-
son, it was perhaps less appealing in postwar Germany, where con-
fronting history and preserving the autonomy of subjects as ethical
agents was more imperative.
In the last chapter of The Savage Mind (1962), Levi-Strauss thus
questioned the assumptions Jean-Paul Sartre made about the absolute
freedom of transcendent consCiousness and the privileged status of
291
CONCLUSION
292
CONCLUSION
293
CONCLUSION
the articulation and contestation of power and to the constitution of
human subjects. Three misleading assumptions about language had
helped disguise the will-to-power as a will-to-truth. First, belief that a
speaker "directly animat[ ed] the empty forms of language with his
aims" supported the "philosophy of the founding subject." In this
view, man "grasps by intuition the meaning lying deposited within
[empty things]" and freely disposes of signs, marks, and traces. Sec-
ondly, the opposing theme of "originating experience" proclaimed that
"things are already murmuring meaning which our language has only
to pick up." The conditions of possibility for speaking of and in the
world were thus "a primordial complicity with the world." The third
attempt to discover rationality within the workings of language ap-
peared to place discourse at the center of the philosophical enterprise,
but at heart attributed an essentializing "consciousness of self" to aU
things. The idea of "universal mediation" allowed language to "ele-
vate[] particularities to the status of concepts"; but it assumed that
things and events "unfold[ ed] the secret of their own essence" as they
took form in language."
The constructivist understanding of language that itself underlies
Foucault's philosophy has deep roots in nineteenth-century Germany.
Language scholars had by the fin-de-siecle unraveled the three pre-
sumptions Foucault dismissed in his inaugural lecture for wrongly re-
taining faith in the stability of prelinguistic points of reference. The
Order of Things identified only a few, and not necessarily the most im-
portant, of the comparative philologists and language scholars that be-
stowed autonomy on words and grammatical structures starting in the
late eighteenth century. Foucault's self-declared genealogy should not
be dismissed as entirely fictitious, however, despite its near teleological
neglect of historical contingency and contemporary concerns. Starting
in the late eighteenth century, theologically inspired Protestant theo-
rists, including J. G. Hamann and J. G. Herder, translated the notion
of God's living word into an appreciation of language as an indepen-
dent organism; national tongues were imagined to build communities
of people united by the force of common origins and shared thought
patterns. This perspective could potentially undermine the agency of
speaking subjects, depicting individuals themselves as being formed by
the structures and historical whims oflanguage.
The supposed "death of man" within nineteenth-century German
reflections on language was, however, never absolute. For Nietzsche
294
CONCLUSION
and Foucault, as for Hamann, Herder, Grimm, and their followers, rec-
ognizing the contingency oflinguistic forms was also a precondition for
ctfective action, offering a strategic advantage in the reconstruction of
alternative communities, new knowledge, and more potent forms of
subjectivity. The philologist who broke through the deceptions of lan-
guages that claimed transparency simultaneously wielded the power to
direct them in his own image. In this respect, the shadow of Babel ex-
tended only so far over nineteenth-century language scholarship. The
ambition to master language in the diversity ofits historical and cultural
tcxms ultimately withstood the cautions of a God troubled by human
conceit.
295
Notes
Introduction
297
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
298
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
ofa Question (New York: Harper & Row, 1976). More concerned with
the history of ideas are Hans Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure: Essays on
the Study of Language and Intellectual History (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, 1982); and Roy Harris and Talbot J. Taylor, Land-
marks in Linguistic Thought: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saus-
sure (New York: Routledge, 1989). Historians of science have also writ-
ten on the "parasite tendency" of linguistics to borrow scientific models
from (and lend them to) botany, anatomy, geology, and evolutionary
theory. See, for example, Henry M. Hoenigswald and Linda F. Wiener,
Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An Interdisciplinary
Perspectil'e (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987); and
Konrad Koerner, ed., Linguistics and Evolutionary Theory: Three Essays by
August Schleicher, Hrnst Haeckel, and Wilhelm Bleek, vol. 6 of Amsterdam
Classics in Linguistics, 1800-1925 (Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1983).
18. Historians distinguish broadly between a state-centered model of citizen-
ship typical of France and Britain and an ethnocultural vision of nation-
hood, which was based on an ideal of linguistic unity and took root east
of the Rhine River. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 51-63;
Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992).
19. See Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism; Brubaker, Citizenship and
Nationhood in France and Germany.
20. Bernhard Giesen, Intellectuals and the Nation: Collective Identity in a
German Axial Age, trans. Nicholas Levis and Amos Weisz (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1993).
21. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin
and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), 71-72, 83-84.
22. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 51-58.
23. See, for example, Werner Besch, "Dialekt, Schreibdialekt, Schriftsprache,
Standardsprache: Exemplarische Skizze ihrer historischen Allspragllng
im Deutschen," in Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allge-
meinen Dialketforschung, ed. Werner Besch et aI., 2:961-90 (New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1983).
24. Andreas Gardt, ed., Nation und Sprache: Die Diskussion ihres Verhiiltnisses
in Geschichte und Gegenwart (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000); and
Claus Ahlzweig, Muttersprache-Vaterland: Die deutsche Nation und
ihre Sprache (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994).
25. Michael Townson, Mother-Tongue and Fatherland: Language and Poli-
tics in Germany (New York: Manchester University Press, 1992).
26. Martin Jay, "Should Intellectual History Take a Linguistic Turn? Reflec-
tions on the Habermas-Gademcr Debate," in Modern European Intellec-
tual History: Reappraisals and New Perspectives, ed. Dominick LaCapra
299
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
300
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
301
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
53. See Sara Smart, "Justus Georg Schottelius and the Patriotic Movement,"
Modern Language Review 84 (1989): 95.
54. See Rolf Schneider, Der Einflufl von Justus GeOl:g Schottelius auf die
deutschsprachige Lexikographie des 17./18. Jahrhunderts (New York: Peter
Lang, 1995); and Stefan Sonderegger, "Zu Grimmelshausens Bedeu-
tung fUr die detusche Sprachgeschichte," in Wahrheit und Wort:
Festschrift fur Rolf Tarot zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Gabriela Scherer and
Beatrice Wehrli, 427-35 (Berlin: Peter Lang, 1996).
55. See Wolfgang Huber, Kulturpatriotismus und Sprachbewufltsein: Studien
zur deutschen Philologie des 17. Jahrhunderts (New York: Peter Lang,
1984).
56. Smart, "Justus Georg Schottelius," 97.
57. Huber, Kulturpatriotismus und Sprachbewufltsein, 237.
58. Hundt, «Spracharbeit" im 17. Jahrhundert, 4.
59. On print culture and the public sphere see Isabel Hull, Sexuality, State,
and Civil Suciety in Germany, 1700-1815 (Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1996); and Ian McNeely, The Emancipation of Writing: German
Civil Society in the Making, 1790s-1820s (Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press, 2003).
60. E. M. Butler, The Tyranny ofGruce over Germany (New York: Macmill-
Ian Company, 1935); Robert Holub, Heinrich Heine's Reception of Ger-
man Grecophilia: The Function and Application of the Hellenic Tradition
in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century (Heidelberg: Carl Winter,
1981); and Suzanne Marchand, Down from Olympus: Archaeology and
Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970 (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1996).
61. See Uwe Puschner, Die viilkische Bewegung im wilhelminischen Kaiser-
reich: Sprache, Rasse, Religion (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 2001).
62. Leon Poliakov, The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist
Ideas in Europe, trans. E. Howard (London: Chatto & Heinemann for
Sussex University Press, 1974) and George Mosse, Toward the Final
Solution: A History of European Racism (New York: Howard Fertig,
1978).
63. See Olender, Languages of Paradise.
64. Abigail Green, Fatherlands: State-Building and Nationhood in Nine-
teenth-Century Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2001),7.
65. James J. Sheehan, "What Is German History? Reflections on the role of
the Nation," Journal of Modern History 53 (1981): 1-23.
66. Roger Chickering, "Language and the Social Foundations of Radical
Nationalism in the Wilhelmine Era," in 1870/71-1989/90: German
302
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1
303
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
304
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
305
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
35.
41. Michaelis, Dissertation on the Influence, 2-3.
42. Michaelis, Dissertation on the Influence, 10.
43. Michaelis, Dissertation on the Influence, 33.
44. Jonathan Hess, Germans, Jews, and the Claims of Modernity (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2002), 29ff.
45. For example, Michaelis argued that stories surrounding the term "celes-
tial manna" indicated that the linguistic conventions of Middle Eastern
tongues had distorted religious truth. Both the Arabs and the Hebrews
claimed that the substance miraculously supplied as food to the children
of Israel during their progress through the wilderness came from heaven
or "tell." Scripture associates manna with dew. And, Michaelis feared,
Moses had obscured that the substance was "no more than a gum exud-
ing from plants" when he made use ofIsraelite expressions that wrongly
held that dew "came from above" not from the earth. According to
Michaelis, "the Jews in Jesus' time went still farther, making this error a
handle to disparage the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves." Rec-
ognizing errors in the metaphors associated with dew in Arabic and
Hebrew and subsequently transferred to manna would confirm Chri5t's
claim that the bread Moses gave his children did not come from heaven.
Michaelis, Dissertation on the Influence, 55-56.
46. Jonathan Sheehan argues that Michaelis's translations of scripture in-
tended to evoke "vertigo" in readers. See The Enlightenment Bible,
206ff.
47. Michaelis, Dissertation on the Influence, 12.
48. Johann Gottfried Herder, On the Origin of Language: Two Essays, trans.
Alexander Gode (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 151.
49. James c. O'Flaherty, Johann Georg Hamann (Boston: Twayne Publish-
ers, 1979), 136.
50. James c. O'Flaherty, The Quarrel of Reason with Itself: Essays on
Hamann, Michaelis, Lessing, Nietzsche (Columbia, s.c.: Camden House,
1988), 135.
51. O'Flaherty, Quarrel of Reason with Itself, 171.
52. Johann Georg Hamann, "Aesthetica in Nuce: Eine Rhapsodie in kabbal-
istischer Prose," in Hamann, Siimtliche Werkc, ed. Josef Nadler (Wupper-
tal: R. Brockhaus, 1999), 2:211; O'Flaherty, Q;tarrel of Reason with
Itself, 63-64.
53. O'Flaherty, Quarrel of Reason with Itself, 115.
54. Hamann, "Aesthetica in Nuce," 2:197.
55. Robert E. Norton, Herder's Aesthetics and the European Enlightenment
(Cornell University Press, 1991),65.
56. Johann Georg Hamann, "Des Ritters von Rosencreuz letzte Willenserk-
306
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
307
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
308
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
309
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
310
NOTES TO CHAPTER 1
311
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2
312
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
313
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
314
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
47. Schlegel, Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, 180f. and 197f. See also Man-
fred Petri, Die Urvolkhypothese: Ein Beitrag zum Geschichtsdenken der
Spiitaufkliirung und des deutschen Idealismus (Berlin: Duncker & Hum-
blot, 1990), 194-95.
48. Friedrich Schlegel, "Philosophic der Geschichte," in Kritische Ausgabe
seiner Werke, 9:31-49.
49. Schlegel, Uber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, 194.
50. Schlegel, Uber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, 195.
51. Konrad Koerner, "Friedrich Schlegel and the Emergence of Historical-
Comparative Grammar," in Practicing Linguistic Historiography, 285.
52. Sengupta, From Salon to Discipline, 19-24.
53. Sengupta, From Salon to Discipline, 103.
54. Peter P. J. Park, "Return to Enlightenment: Franz Bopp's Reformation
of Comparative Grammar," in Language Study and the Politics of Com-
munity in Global Context, ed. David Hoyt and Karen Oslund (New York:
Rowland & Littlefield, 2006), 62.
55. Salomon Lefmann, Franz Bopp: Sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft, vo!' 1
(Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1891), 10-14.
56. Cited in Lefmann, Franz Bopp, 31.
57. Lefmann, Franz Bopp, 33.
58. Koerner, "Friedrich Schlegel," 285.
59. Franz Bopp, Vocalismus oder sprachvC1;gleichende Kritiken iiber Jacob
Grimm's deutsche Grammatik und Graff's althochdeutschen Sprachschatz
mit Begriindung einer neuen Theorie des Ablauts (Berlin: Nicolaische
Buchhandlung, 1836), 1.
60. Bopp, Uber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung
mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen
Sprache, ed. K. J. Windischmann (Frankfurt: Andrdiische Buchhand-
lung, 1816), 11.
61. Berthold Delbrlick, Introduction to the Study of Language: A Critical
Survey for the History and Methods of Comparative Grammar of the Indo-
European Languages, trans. Eva Channing (London: Trlibner, 1882),
19.
62. Franz Bopp, Uber das Conjugationssystem, 8-9. Emphasis added.
63. Bopp, Uber das Conjugationssystem, 7.
64. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, cd. William Bright, vo!' 2 (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1992),213-15.
65. Bopp, Uber das Conjugationssystem, 8.
66. R. E. Asher and J. M. Y. Simpson, cds., Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistics (New York: Pergamon, 1994), 5:2576tI
67. See Vivien Law, "Processes of Assimilation: European Grammars of San-
skrit in the Early Decades of the Nineteenth Century," in La linguistique
315
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
316
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
317
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
318
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
11.
119. Koerner, "Friedrich Schlegel," 280.
120. Gordon Hewes, "Disputes on the Origin of Language," in Sprachphiloso-
ph ie-Philosophy of Language-La philosophie du langage. Ein interna-
tionales Handbuch-An International Handbook of Contemporary
Research-Manuel international des recherches contemporaines, ed.
Marcelo Dascal, Dietfried Gerhardus, Kuno Lorenz, and Georg Megle
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 2:936.
121. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen
Sprachbaues und ihren Einflufl aUf die geistige Entwicklung des Men-
schengeschlechts, ed. Donatella Di Cesare (Munich: Ferdinand Schoningh,
1998), 378tf.
122. Carl Friedrich Neumann, "Sprache und Schrift der Chinesen," in Asiatis-
che Studien (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1837),4.
123. That the Societe Asiatique in Paris wanted copies of the Sanskrit type that
Bopp had made for the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1824 suggests the
relative strength of German Indology. See Windisch, Geschichte der San-
skrit Philologie, 65, 78.
124. Klaproth, Reise in den Kaukasus, l:v.
125. Thus, when the Indologist Friedrich Max Muller took an Oxford chair
in Sanskrit in 1851, he was struck by the paltry state of Oriental studies
in England. See Patricia Casey Sutcliffe, "F. M. Muller and Dwight
Whitney as Exporters of Nineteenth-Century German Philology: A Soci-
ological Analysis of the Development of Linguistic Theory" (PhD diss.,
University of Texas, Austin, 2000), 93.
126. For August Ludwig Schlozer's coining the term "Semitic languages," see
Justin Stagl, "August Ludwig Schlozers Entwurf einer 'Volkerkunde'
oder 'Ethnographie seit 1772,'" Ethnologische Zeitschrift Zurich 2
(1974),75.
127. Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical
Criticism (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 4ff.
128. See Arno Beyer's summary in Deutsche Einflusse aUfdie englische Sprach-
wissenschaft im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Goppingen: Kummerle Ver-
lag, 1981), 184-86.
129. Wilhelm Gesenius, Ausfuhrlichcs grammatisch-kritischcs Lchwebiiude der
hebriiischen Sprache mit Vewleichung der verwandten Dialekte (Leipzig:
Friedrich Christian Wilhelm Vogel, 1817), x.
130. Wilhelm Gesenius, Geschichte der hebriiischen Sprache und Schrift. Hine
philologische Einleitung in die Sprachlehren und Wiirterbucher der hehriiis-
chen Sprache (Leipzig: Friedrich Christian Wilhelm Vogel, 1815), 13.
131. Gesenius, Geschichte, 25.
132. Gesenius, Geschichte, 19.
319
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
320
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
321
NOTES TO CHAPTER 2
175. On this theory see Theodor Bentey, "Ein abschnitt aus meiner vorlesung
uber 'vergleichende Grammatik der indo-germanischen sprachen,'"
Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des
deutschen,grieschischen, und lateinischen 9 (1860): 81-132.
176. See the discussion in Delbruck, Introduction to the Study of Language,
86.
177. Theodor Benfey, "Muller: Lectures on the Science of Language" (1862),
in Kleinere Schriften, 4:129.
178. Benfey, "Muller," 4:128-29.
179. Beyer, Deutsche Einflusse, 184.
180. Pott, "Indogermanischer Sprachstamm," 14.
181. August Wilhelm Schlegel, "De I'origine des hindous," in Essais litteraires
et historiques (Bonn: E. Weber, 1842),489.
182. Pott, "Indogermanischer Sprachstamm," 12.
183. Koerner, "Friedrich Schlegel," 281.
184. See Koerner, "Friedrich Schlegel," 282.
185. Augstein, "Linguistics and Politics," 4-5.
186. Humboldt, Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues, 368.
187. Humboldt, Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues,
371-73. See also Augstein, "Linguistics and Politics," 7.
188. Humboldt, Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues, 368.
189. Grossmann, "Wilhelm von Humboldt's Linguistic Ideology," 25.
190. Grossmann, "Wilhelm von Humboldt's Linguistic Ideology," 37-38.
191. Ismar Schorsch, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern
Judaism (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1994),59.
192. Jacob Katz, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980) 76-83.
193. Sorkin, Transformation of German Jewry, 22.
194. Olender, Languages of Paradise, 9ff,
195. Olender, Languages of Paradise, 139ft:
196. Sheldon Pollack has argued that German Orientalism was from its incep-
tion directed inward toward Europe and the internal colonization of
Jews in the National Socialist period. See his "Deep Orientalism?" See
also Ritchie Robertson, '" Urheimat Asien': The Re-Orientation of Ger-
man and Austrian Jews, 1900-1925," German Life and Letters 49, no. 2
(1996): 182-92; and Nadia Malinovich, "Orientalism and the Construc-
tion ofJewish Identity in France, 1900-1932," Jewish Culture and His-
tory 2, no. 1 (1999): 1-25.
197. Johann Heinrich Kalthoff, Handbuch der hebriiischen Alterti,imer (Mun-
ster: Theissingsche Buchhandlung, 1840), 3, 5, 6.
198. Kalthoff, Handbuch,409-10.
322
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
Chapter 3
323
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
324
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
325
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
326
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
327
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
328
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
329
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
330
NOTES TO CHAPTER 3
331
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
Chapter 4
332
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
333
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
28. Wilhelm von Humboldt, "Latium und Hellas oder Betrachtungen uber
das classische Alterthum," in Wilhelm von Humboldts Werke, 3:137-38.
29. Klemens Menze, Wilhelm von Humboldt und Christian Gottlob Heyne
(Ratingen bei Dusseldorf: Henn, 1966), 36.
30. Marchand, DOJVn from Olympus, 28.
31. Humboldt, "Latium und Hellas," 3:166.
32. Humboldt, "Latium und Hellas," 3: 163.
33. Wilhelm von Humboldt, "Geschichte des Verfalls und Untergangs der
griechischen Freistaaten," in Werke in funf Biinden, ed. Andreas Flitner
and Klaus Giel (Berlin: Rutten & Loening, 1961),2:87-89.
34. Friedrich Ast, "Uber den Geist des Altertums und dessen Bedeutung fur
unser Zeitalter," in Kleine Piidagogische Texte, vol. 17, Dokumente des
Neuhumanismus(Berlin: Julius Beltz, 1931), 1:16.
35. See Johann Arnold Kanne, Ueber die VerJVandtschaft der griechischen und
teutschen Sprache (Leipzig: Wilhelm Rein, 1804).
36. Cited in Hans Loewe, Friedrich Thiersch, Ein Humanisten Leben
(Munich: Oldenbourg, 1913), 132.
37. Each of the modern European languages embodied one quality of Greek.
Portuguese, for example, resembled the Ionian dialect; Spanish was akin
to Doric and Aeolian in that it was "magnificent, solemn, and proud."
See Ast, "Ober den Geist des Altertums," 1:28-29.
38. Ast, "Uber den Geist des Altertums," 1 :28.
39. Ast, "Uber den Geist des Altertums," 1:21.
40. Ast, "Uber den Geist des Alrerrums," 1:15-16.
41. Franz Passow, "Die griechische Sprache, nach ihrer Bedeutung in der
Bildung deutscher Jugend," in Archiv deutscher Nationalbildung, ed.
Reinhold Bernhard Jackmann and Franz Passow (Berlin: Friedrich Mau-
rer, 1812), 1:126.
42. Franz Passow, "Der griechischen Sprache padagogischer Vorrang vor der
lateinischen, von der Schattenseite betrachtet," in Vermischte Schriften,
ed. W. A. Passow (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1843),23.
43. Passow, "Der griechischen Sprache," 115.
44. Passow, "Der griechischen Sprache," 107-8.
45. Humboldt, "Latium und Hellas," 3:169.
46. Humboldt, "Latium und Hellas," 3:167.
47. See, for example, Kruger's attack on Georg Curtius and the comparative
method in the epilogue of his Griechische Sprachlehre fur Schulen
(Leipzig: R. W. KrUger, 1875),202-14.
48. Gottfried Hermann, Acta Societatis Graecae (Leipzig: C. H. Funkhanel,
1836-40), xii-xiii.
49. Bahner and Neumann, SprachJVissenschaftliche Germanistik, 342.
50. Conrad Bursian, Geschichte der classischen Philologie in Deutschland von
334
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
335
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
336
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
337
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
U8. Karl Otfried Muller, "Ueber den angeblich agyptischen Ursprung," 533.
119. Karl Otfried Muller, "Ueber den angeblich agyptischen Ursprung," 536.
120. Karl Otfried Muller, Orchomenos und die Minyer: Geschichte Hellenischer
Stiimme und Stiidte (Graz: Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt,
1969), 1:2.
121. Karl Otfried Muller, Orchomenos und die Minyer, 1:2.
122. Karl Otfried Muller, Die Dorier: Geschichte Hellenischer Stamme und
Stadte (Graz: Akademische Druck-Ulld Verlagsanstalt, 1969), 2:l.
123. Karl Otfried Muller, Die Dorier, 2:1.
124. Karl Otfried Muller, Die Dorier, 2:16.
125. Martin Bernal's assertion that Muller took no notice of new develop-
ments in fields related to the classics is incorrect; Mtiller's turn away from
Egypt should not be seen as the result of purely "externalist reasons,"
such as racism or a belief in progress (Martin Bernal, Black Athena: The
Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization [New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1987], 1:315-16).
126. Karl Otfried Muller, "Friedrich Thiersch: Uber die Epochen der bilden-
den Kunst unter den Griechen," in Kleine deutsche Schriften, 2: 318.
127. In 1836, for example, Muller praised Raphael Kuhner's attempt to apply
the techniques of historical grammar developed by Jacob Grimm to
school grammars of the Greek language, demonstrating a thorough
knowledge of the significance of sound shifts for etymology, as well as of
the value of comparing the inflection patterns of Greek and other Indo-
European verbs. See Karl Otfried Muller, "AusfUhrliche Grammatik der
Griechischen Sprache wissenschaftlich und mit Rucksicht auf den Schul-
gebrauch ausgearbeitet von Raphael Kuhner," in Kleine deutsche
Schriftcn, 1:336ff. See also Karl Otfried Milller, "Lehre von den Par-
tikeln der griechischen Sprache von J. A. Hartung," in Kleine deutsche
Schriften, 1 :327tf.
128. Karl Otfried Milller, "Acta Societatis Graecae," Kleine deutsche Schriften,
1:12.
129. Karl Otfried Milller, "Acta Societatis Graecae," 1:12.
130. Bernal, Black Athena, 1:310 and 314f
131. Karl Otfried Muller, "Acta Societatis Graecae," 1:13.
132. Karl Otffied Milller, "Acta Societatis Graecae," 1:8-9.
133. Karl Otfried Muller, Die Etrusker (Graz: Akademische Druck-und Ver-
lagsanstalt, 1965), 1:9-10.
134. Karl Otfried Milller, Geschichte der griechischen Literatttr bis aUf das
Zeitalter Alexanders, ed. Eduard Muller (Breslau: Josef Max und Komp.,
1841),1:8.
135. Karl Otfried Milller, Geschichte der griechischen [,iteratur, 1 :5.
136. Karl Otfried Milller, Handbuch der Archaologie der Kunst (Breslau: Josef
338
NOTES TO CHAPTER 4
339
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
Chapter 5
340
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
341
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
342
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
343
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
344
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
345
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
346
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
347
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
348
NOTES TO CHAPTER 5
349
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
Chapter 6
350
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
351
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
352
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
353
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
354
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
355
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
356
NOTES TO CHAPTER 6
357
NOTES TO CONCLUSION
Conclusion
. 358
NOTES TO CONCLUSION
359
NOTES TO CONCLUSION
360
Bibliography
Primary Literature
361
BIBLIOGRAPHY
362
BIBLIOGRAPHY
363
BIBLIOGRAPHY
364
BIBLIOGRAPHY
365
BIBLIOGRAPHY
tice, 1997.
Herder, Johann Gottfried. Herders Siimtliche Werke. Edited Bernhard Suphan.
33 vols. Berlin: G. alms, 1967-68.
- - - . On the Origin of Language: Two Essays. Translated by Alexander Gode.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.
Hermann, Gottfried. Acta Societitas Graecae. Leipzig: C. H. Funkhanel,
1836-40.
- - - . Ueber Herrn Professor Biickhs Behandlung der griechischen Inschriften.
Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer, 1826.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. On Language: The Diversity of the Human Lan-
guage-Structure and Its Influence on the Mental Development of
Mankind. Translated by Peter Heath. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1988.
- - - . Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Ein-
flufl auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschlichengeschlechts. Edited by
Donatella Di Cesare. Munich: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1998.
- - - . Werke in funf Biinden. Edited by Andreas Flitner and Klaus Giel. 5
vols. Berlin: Rutten & Loening, 1961.
- - - . Wilhelm von Humboldts Werke. Edited by Albert Leitzmann et al. 17
vols. Berlin: B. Behr, 1903-36.
Indische Bibliothek. Eine Zeitschrift von A. W Schlegel. Bonn: Eduard Weber,
1823-24.
Jahn, Otto. Gottfried Hermann: Eine Gediichtnissrede. Leipzig: Weidmannsche
Buchhandlung, 1849.
Jones, William. "The Third Anniversary Discourse on the Hindus." In A
Reader in Nineteenth-Century Historical Indo-European Linguistics,
edited by Winfred P. Lehmann, 7-20. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1967.
Kalthoff, Johann Heinrich. Handbuch der hebriiischen Altertumer. Munster:
Theissingsche Ruchhandlung, 1840.
Kanne, Johann Arnold. Uber die Verwandtschaft der griechischen und teutschen
Sprache. Leipzig: Wilhelm Rein, 1804.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Friedrich Max Muller.
New York: MacMillan, 1907.
K1aproth, Heinrich Julius. Abhandlung uber die Sprache und Schrift der Uig-
uren. Berlin, 1812.
- - . Asia Polyglotta. Paris: J. M. Eberhart, 1823.
- - - . Geographisch-historische Beschreibung des iistlichen Kaukasus, zwischen
den Flussen Terek, Aragwi, Kur und dem Kaspischen Meere. Wiemar: Lan-
des-Industrie-Comptoir, 1814.
- - - . "Observations sur la critique faite par M. Sam Lee ... , par M. Ie
baron Silvestre de Sacy." Nouveau Journal Asiatique 5 (1830): 81-96,
366
BIBLIOGRAPHY
241-56,321-35.
- - - . Reise in den Kaukasus und nach Georgien unternommen in den Jahren
1807 und 1808, auf Veranstaltung der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wiss-
enschaften zu St. Petersburg. 2 vols. Berlin, 1812-14. Reprint, Leipzig:
Zentralantiquariat der DDR, 1970.
- - - . Tableau historique, geographique, ethnographique et politique du Cau-
case et des provinces limitrophes entre fa Russie et la Persie. Paris: Ponthieu
et c., 1827.
- - - . (Wilhelm Lauterbach). Dr. William Schott's vergebliche Ubersetzung des
Confucius aus der Ursprache, cine litterarische Betrugerei. Leipzig: Pon-
thieu, Michelson und Comp., 1828.
Kretzschmer, Johann Karl. Friedrich Wilhelm III: Sein Leben, sein Wirken und
seine Zeit: Ein Erinnerungsbuch fur das preussische Yolk. Vol. 2. Danzig:
Friedrich Samuel Gerhard, 1842.
KrUger, Karl Wilhelm. Griechische Sprachlehre fur Schulen. Leipzig: R. W.
Kruger, 1875.
Kuhn, Adalbert. "Die sprachvergleichung und die urgeschichte der indoger-
manischen volker." Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem
Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen 4 (1855): 115-24.
Lassen, Christian. Indische Altertumskunde. 4 vols. Bonn: H. B. Konig, 1847.
- - - . "Uber Herrn Professor Bopps grammatisches System der Sanskrit-
Sprache." Indische Bibliothek 3 (1830): 1-113.
Lazarus, Moritz. "Einige synthetische Gedanken zur Volkerpsychologie."
Zeitschrift fur Vijlkerpsychologie und SprachwissenschaJt 3 (1865): 1-94.
- - - . Die sittliche Berechtigung Preuflens in Deutschland. Berlin: Carl
Schultze, 1850.
- - - . "Ueber den Begriff und die Moglichkeit einer Volkerpsychologie." In
Deutsches Museum: Zeitschrift fur Literatur, Kunst und offentliches Leben,
edited by Robert Prutz, 112-26. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhand-
lung, 1851.
- - - . "Verdichtung des Denkens in der Geschichte: Ein Fragment."
Zeitschrift fur Viilkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 2 (1862): 54-62.
- - - . Was heiftt national? Berlin: Ferdinand Dummler, 1880.
Lazarus, Moritz, and Heymann Steinthal. "Einleitende Gedanken tiber Volk-
erpsychologie, als Einladung zu einer Zeitschrift fur Volkcrpsychologie
und Sprachwissenschaft." Zeitschrift fur Viilkerpsychologie und Sprachwiss-
enschaft I (1860/61): 1-73.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. New Essays on Human Understanding. Translated
and edited by Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1996.
- - - . "Unvorgreiffliche Gedancken, betreffend die Austibung und
Verbesserung der Teutschen Sprache." In History of Linguistics: Eigh-
367
BIBLIOGRAPHY
368
BIBLIOGRAPHY
369
BIBLIOGRAPHY
370
BIBLIOGRAPHY
371
BIBLIOGRAPHY
372
BIBLIOGRAPHY
373
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Secondary Literature
Aarsleff~ Hans. "The Berlin Academy under Frederick the Great." History of
the Human Sciences 2 (1989): 193-207.
- - - . From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellec-
tual History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.
- - - . The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1967.
Abrams, M. H. Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in
Romantic Literature. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.
Ahlzweig, Claus. Muttersprache-Vaterland: Die deutsche Nation und ihre
Sprache. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1994.
Alter, Stephen. Darwinism and the Linguistic Image: Language, Race, and
Natural Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1999.
- - - . "William Dwight Whitney and the Science of Language." Ph.D. diss.,
University of Michigan, 1993.
Amsterdamska, Olga. Schools of Thought: The Development of Linguistics from
Bopp to Sa ussure. Boston: D. Reidel, 1987.
374
BIBLIOGRAPHY
375
BIBLIOGRAPHY
376
BIBLIOGRAPHY
377
BIBLIOGRAPHY
tions and the Change of Literary Discourse, edited by Walter Pape, 61-78.
New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1993.
Christ, Karl. "Aspekte der Antike- Rezeption in der deutschen A1tertumswiss-
enschaft des 19. J ahrhunderts." In Die Antike in Italien und Deutsch-
land, edited by Christ and Momigliano, 21-37.
Christ, Karl, and Arnalda Momigliano, eds. Die Antike im 19. Jahrhundert in
Italien und Deutschland. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988.
Clark, Christopher. "Germany: 1815-1848: Restoration or Pre-March." In
Nineteenth-Century Germany: Politics, Culture and Society 1780-1918,
edited by John Breuilly, 40-65. New York: Oxford University Press,
2000.
Cloeren, Hermann J. Language and Thought: German Approaches to Analytic
Philosophy in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. New York: Walter
de Gruyter, 1988.
Coward, Rosalind, and John Ellis, Language and Materialism: Developments in
Semiology and the Theory of the Subject. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1977.
Cram, David, Andrew Linn, and Elke Nowak, eds. History of Linguistics. Vol.
2, From Classical to Contemporary Linguistics. Philadelphia: John Ben-
jamins, 1999.
Crane, Susan A. Collecting and the Historical Consciousness in Early Nine-
teenth-Century Germany. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000.
Crawford, Claudia. The Beginnings of Nietzsche's Theory of Language. New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1988.
Culler, Jonathan. Saussure. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1976.
- - - . Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Liter-
ature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975.
Darmesteter, James. Essais Orientaux. Paris: Librairie Centrale des Beaux-Arts,
1883.
Dascal, Marcelo, Dietfried Gerhardus, Kuno Lorenz, and Georg Meggle, eds.
Sprachphilosophie-Philosophy of Language-la philosophie du langue. Ein
internationales Handbuch-An International Handbook of Contempo-
rary Research-Manuel international des recherches Contemporaines. 2
vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
Davidsun, Arnuld I. "Structures and Strategies of Discourse: Remarks Towards
a History of Foucault's Philosophy of Language." In Foucault and his
Interlocutors, ed. Arnold 1. Davidson, 1-20. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1997.
Davies, Anna Morpurgo. "Saussure and Indo-European Linguistics." In The
Cambridge Companion to Saussure, ed. Carol Sanders, 9-29. Cambridge
University Press, 2004.
Davies, T. Witton. Heinrich Ewald, Orientalist and Theologian 1803-1903: A
378
BIBLIOGRAPHY
379
BIBLIOGRAPHY
380
BIBLIOGRAPHY
381
BIBLIOGRAPHY
159-92.
Grafton, Anthony, and Lisa Jardine. From Humanism to the Humanities: Edu-
cation and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe.
London: Duckworth, 1986.
Green, Abigail. Fatherlands: State-Building and Nationhood in Nineteenth-
Century Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 200l.
GreB, Franz. Germanistik und Politik: Beitrtige zu einer nationalen Wiss-
enschaft. Stuttgart: Frommann-Hozboog, 1971.
Gritsch, Eric W. "Luther and the State: Post-Reformation Ramifications." In
Luther and the Modern State in Germany: Sixteenth-Century Jissays and
Studies, edited by James D. Tracy,45-60. Kirksville, Mo.: Sixteenth Cen-
tury Journal Publishers, 1986.
Grossman, Jeffrey. The Discourse on Yiddish in Germany from the Enlighten-
ment to the Second Empire. Rochester, N.Y.: Camden House, 2000.
- - - . "Wilhelm von Humboldt's Linguistic Ideology: The Problem of Plu-
ralism and the Absolute Difference of National Character-Or, Where
Do the Jews Fit In?" German Studies Review 20, no. 1 (1997): 12.
Grunewald, Eckhard. Friedrich Heinrich von der Hagen: Ein Beitrag zur
Friihgeschichte der Germanistik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988.
Haar, Michel. "Nietzsche und die Sprache." In c7edes Wort ist ein VorteuitJ':
Philologie und Philosophie in Nietzsches Denken, edited by Manfred
Riedel, 63-75. Cologne: Bohlau Verlag, 1999.
Haas, Walter. Jacob Grimm und die deutschen Mundarten. Stuttgart: Steiner,
1990.
Hagemann, Karen. "Of'Manly Valor' and 'German Honor': Nation, War, and
Masculinity in the Age of the Prussian Uprising against Napoleon." Cen-
tral European History 30, no. 2 (1997): 187-220.
Halbfass, William. India and Europe: An Essay in Philosophical Understanding.
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988.
Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. Language Alone: The Critical Fetish of Modernity.
New York: Routledge, 2002.
Harris, Roy. Saussure and His Interpreters. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2003.
Harris, Roy, and Talbot J. Taylor. Landmarks in Linguistic Thought: The West-
ern Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. New York: Routledge, 1989.
Hauger, Brigitte. Johan Nicolai Madvig: The Language Theory of a Classical
Philologist. Munster: Nodus, 1994.
Hauser, Christoph. Anftinge bii1lJerlicher Organisation: Philhellenismus tmd
Friihliberalismus in Siidwestdeutschland. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1990.
Heath, Michael. Introduction to Wilhelm von Humboldt, On Language: The
Diversity of the Human Language-Structure and its Influence on the Men-
382
BIBLIOGRAPHY
383
BIBLIOGRAPHY
384
BIBLIOGRAPHY
385
BIBLIOGRAPHY
386
BIBLIOGRAPHY
387
BIBLIOGRAPHY
388
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Menze, Clemens. Wilhelm von Humboldt und Christian Gottlob Heyne. Ratin-
gen bei Dusseldorf: A. Henn, 1966.
Mertens, Volker, ed. Grimms, die Germanistik, und die Gegenwart. Vienna:
Fassbaender, 1988.
Meves, Uwe. "Zum InstitutionalisierungsprozeB der deutschen Philologie:
Die Periode der Lehrstuhlerrichtung." In Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Ger-
manistik im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Jiirgen Fohrmann and Wilhelm
VoBkamp, 115-203. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1994.
- - - . "Zur Namesgebung 'Germanist. '" In Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Ger-
manistik im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Jurgen Fohrmann and Wilhelm
VoBkamp, 25-47. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1994.
Miller, Robert L. The Linguistic Relativity Principle and Humboldtian Ethno-
linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 1968.
Mommsen, Wolfgang. Burgerliche Kultur und politische Ordnung: Kunstler,
Schriftsteller und Intellektuelle in der deutschen Geschichte, 1831-1933.
Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000.
Mosse, George. The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third
Reich. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964.
- - - . "Jewish Emancipation: Between Bildung and Respectability." In The
Jewish Response to German Culture: From the Enlightenment to the Second
World War, edited by Juduha Reinharz, 1-16. Hanover: University Press
of New England, 1985.
- - - . Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. New York:
Howard Fertig, 1978.
Muhlack, Ulrich. "Zum Verhaltnis von Klassischer Philologie und
Geschichtswissenschaft im 19. Jahrhundert." In Flashar, Grunder, and
Horstmann, Philologie und Hermeneutik im neunzehnten Jahrhundert,
1:225-39.
Muller, Daniel. Wider die «Vernujt in der Sprache": Zum Verhiiltnis von
Sprachkritik und Sprachpraxis im Schreiben Nietzsches. Tubingen: Gunter
Narr, 1995.
Muller, Jorg Jochen, ed. Germanistik und deutsche Nation 1806-48: Zur Kon-
stitution but;gerlichen Bewufltseins. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1974.
Muller-Vollmer, Kurt. "Von der Poetik zur Linguistik-Wilhelm von Hum-
boldt und der romantische Sprachbegriff." In Universalismus und Wiss-
enschaft im Werk und Wirken der Bruder Humboldt, edited by Klaus
Hammacher and John Pickering, 224-40. Frankfurt: Vittorio Kloster-
mann, 1976.
Naumann, Bernd. "Heymann Steinthals Position in der Geschichte der
Sprachwissenschaft." In GermaniJtik und Deutschunterricht im Zeitalter
der Technologic, edited by N. Oellers, 1:58-65. Tubingen: Niemeyer,
1988.
389
BIBLIOGRAPHY
390
BIBLIOGRAPHY
391
BIBLIOGRAPHY
392
BIBLIOGRAPHY
393
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smith, Olivia. The Politics of Language, 1791-1819. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 1984.
Smart, Sara. "Justus Georg Schottelius and the Patriotic Movement." Modern
Language Review 84 (1989): 83-98.
Sonderegger, Stefan. "Zu Grimmelshausens Bedeutung fur die deutsche
Sprachgeschichte." In Wahrheit und Wort: Festschrift fur Rolf Tarot zum
65. Geburtstag, edited by Gabriela Scherer and Beatrice Wehrli, 427-35.
Berlin: Peter Lang, 1996.
Sorkin, David. The Transformation of German Jewry, 1780-1840. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987.
Stache-Rosen, Valentina. German Indologists: Biographies of Scholars in Indian
Studies writing in German. New Delhi: Max Muller Bhavar, 1990.
Stagl, Justin. "August Ludwig Schlozers Entwurf einer 'Volkerkunde' oder
'Ethnographie seit 1772.'" Ethnologische Zeitschrift Zurich 2 (1974):
73-9l.
Starn, James. On the Origin of Language: The Fate of a Question. New York:
Harper & Row, 1976.
Steiner, George. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1975.
Sternsdorff, Jurgen. Wissenschaftskonstitution und Reichsgrundung: Die
Entwicklung der Germanistik bei Wilhelm Scherer: Eine Biographie nach
unverbffentlichen Quellen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1979.
Stetter, Christian. "'Uber Denken und Sprechen': Wilhelm von Humboldt
zwischen Fichte und Herder." In Wilhelm von Humboldts Sprachdenken:
Symposium zum 150. Todestag, edited by Hans-Werner Scharf, 25--46.
Essen: Reimar Hobbig, 1989.
Stocking, George. Victorian Anthropology. New York: Free Press, 1987.
Stoeftler, F. Ernest. German Pietism during the Eighteenth Century. Leiden:
Brill, 1973.
Stoianovich, Traian. Balkan Worlds: The First and Last Europe. Armonk, N.Y.:
M. E. Sharpe, 1994.
Stubbs, Elsina. Wilhelm von Humboldt's Philosophy of Language: Its Sources and
Influence. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2002.
Surber, Jere Paul. Language and German Idealism: Fichte's Linguistic Philoso-
phy. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 1996.
- - - , ed. Metacritique: The Linguistic Assault on German Idealism. Amherst,
N.Y.: Humanity Books, 200l.
Sutcliffe, Patricia Casey. "Friedrich Max Muller and Dwight Whitney as
Exporters of Nineteenth-Century German Philology: A Sociological
Analysis of the Development of Linguistic Theory." PhD diss. University
of Texas, Austin, 2000.
Sweet, Paul R. Wilhelm von Humboldt: A Biography. Vol. 1, 1767-1808.
394
BIBLIOGRAPHY
395
BIBLIOGRAPHY
396
BIBLIOGRAPHY
397
Index
399
INDEX
400
INDEX
157,172; students at, 153,246, field, 76,95, 152,224; On the
251,253,271 Conjugation System of Sanskrit,
Bernal, Martin, 186, 187 77-79, 119,200; students of,
Bernhardi, August Ferdinand, 49,53, 191,206,213
56,60,263 bourgeoisie, 7, 14, 15, 18, 137-40,
Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche), 163,250
267,269 Breal, Michel, 176,235,270,272,
Bhagavad Gita, 77, 81 275-76
Bible Studies (Deissmann), 194 Breitinger, Johann Jakob, 116
biblical criticism, 1, 3,6,9,35-37; Brinkmann, Hennig, 288
and historicization of language, Britain, 16,35,72,88,198,212-13
95-101,194-96,199; rational, Brosse, Charles de, 205
32-33,306 Brticke, Ernst, 155
Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Tes- Brugmann, Karl, 191,236-38,271,
tament Greek (Cremer), 195 273
Biographies of Words and the Home of Bryant, Jacob, 71
the Aryas (Max Mtiller), 216, Bumann, Waltraud, 258
217 Bunsen, Christian Karl Josias von,
Birth of Tragedy (Nietzsche), 261-62 107,194,213-14
Bismarck, Otto von, 17, 153, 156, Burmese language, 93
249 Burnouf, Eugene, 218, 222-24
Black Sea, 70, 220 Btisching, Jchann Gustav, 117
Blok, Josine H., 185
Boas, Franz, 244 Caspian Sea, 74, 202, 220
Bockh, Richard, 248-49 Catherine II, czarina of Russia, 68
Bodmer, Johann Jakob, 116, 134 Caucasian languages, 90
Boeckh, August, 7,162,171-78, Caucasus Mountains, 65, 74, 87, 88,
184, 186,259; Encyclopedia and 89,90
Methodology of the Philological Celtic language and Celts, 14, 148
Sciences, 172-73, 175; and Her- central Asia, 66, 69, 84, 88, 93
mann, 173-75; and language, Chaldean language, 37, 221
162,172,173-75,191,263 Chamberlain, Houston Stuart,
Bohlen, Peter von, 89 286-87
Bohm, Arnold, 43 Champollion, Fran.;ois, 222
Bonaparte, Jerome, 120 Chaudhuri, Nirad c., 215
Bonn, University of, 80-81, 83, 84, Chezy, Antoine-Leonard de, 73, 77,
229 222
Bopp, Franz, 76-83, 123, 176,200, Chickering, Roger, 250
222, 224; and A. W. Schlegel, China, 71, 91, 92
81,83; and Benfey, 107; on clas- Chinese language, 24, 89, 110,222,
sification of languages, 82-83, 254; Indo-European languages,
84; on comparative grammar, in relation to, 60, 75, 82, 104,
79-83; and F. Schlegel, 79, 80; 111,230,257; Sanskrit, in rela-
on inflection, 79-81, 82-83; tion to, 93-94
influence of, 19,98,119,170, Christianity, history of, 199, 201,
188,276; and linguistics as a 212,218,221,227-28
401
INDEX
402
INDEX
Current State of Greece (Thiersch), Eastern Origins of the Celtic Nations
182 (Prichard), 212
Curti us, Georg, 162, 171, 191-94, Ecole des langues orientales vivantes,
241,259,271 254
Cushitic languages, 107. See also Edda, ll4
Ethiopian languages Egypt and Egyptian languages, 71,
Czech language, IS 179,184,185,189,191,194,
214,257
Danish languagc, IS, 114, 135,245 Elements of Comparative Philology
Darstellung der AltertumswissenschaJt (Latham),219
(Wolf), 159, 163-64 Encyclopedia and Methodology of the
Darwin, Charles, 231, 233, 234, Philological Sciences (Boeckh),
301n43 172-73,175
de Gaulle, Charles, 291 Encyclopedia of Philology (Madvig),
Deissmann, Gustav Adolf, 194-95 176
Delitzsch, Friedrich, 100-10 1, 220 English language, 40, 127, 135
Denmark, 150 Enlightenment, 6, 21, 25, 63, 120,
Descartes, Rene, 205 130, 162, 178,212;and~n
descent, ethnic, 10, IS, 17, ll5, guage theory, 50,61, ll8, 137,
289 174; reception in Germany, 30,
Deutsches Volksthum (Jahn), 117 34,40
Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbiicher, 206 Epicuflls of Samos, 204
diachronic linguistics. See linguistics: Erasmus, Desiderius, 9
diachronic Ernst August I, king of Hanover, 98,
dialects and dialectology, 102, ll5, 146
128,131-36,149-50,154,237 Erthal, Friedrich Karl von, 77
Diary of a Christian (Hamann), 37 Essay Concerning Human Under-
Dietrich, Franz, 152 standing (Locke), 26-28
Dilthey, Wilhelm, 244, 247 Essay on Pdli (Burnouf), 222
Discourse on Methods (Descartes), 205 Essay on the Inequality of the Human
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality Races (Gobineau), 197-98
(Rousseau), 42 Essay on the Language and Wisdom of
discursive community, 8, 10, 11, 127, the Indians (F. Schlegel), 73-76,
281,289; and German scholars, 222
136-37,243,244,247,248 Essay on the Origin of Human Under-
Dissen, Ludolph Georg, 105, 206 standing (Condillac), 28-29·
Dissertation on the Influence ofOpin- Essay on the Origin of Language
ions on Language (Michaelis), (Herder),41-42
32-33,34,41 Ethiopian languages, 9, 100
Dodart, Denis, 205 ethnic descent. See descent, ethnic
Dorn, Bernhard, 73, 88, 90-91 ethnology and ethnography, 45,
Droysen, Johann Gustav, 173 66-68,205,212,214-16,224;
Dutch language, 127,128,135,150, and language as method, 43, 45;
231 Mosaic, 67-71
Etymological Studies of Indo-Germanic
East India Company, 89, 346n128 Languages (Pon), 208
403
INDEX
etymology, 15,45,143,187,265; Frahn, Christian Martin, 88, 90
and the historicization of lan- France, 10, 16,88,198,221-24,
guage, 126, 192; and meaning of 276,290-94
words, 8, 101,265--66; specula- Franconian dialects, 132
tive, 69, 122,202 Franco- Prussian War, 156, 275
Europe)s Languages in Systematic Frank, Othmar, 72, 76, 89
Overview (Schleicher), 232 Frankfurt Parliament, 140, 147, 150,
Ewald, Friedrich Heinrich, 88, 95, 245
98-99,103-4,105,108,211, Franz Joseph I, emperor of Austria-
223,229 Hungary, 153
exegesis. See biblical criticism frederick II, king of Prussia, 25,
expressive theory oflanguage, 20-21, 30-31,34,40
63,103,281 French language, 15, 31,34,309
Freud, Sigmund, 244
Fairy Tales (Grimm), 120, 137 Freyer, Hieronymus, 14
Fallersleben, Heinrich Hoffmann von, Freytag, Gustav, 18
117,146 FriedensSieg (Schottelius), 13
family tree (Stammbaum), 10,231 Friedrich Wilhelm III, king of Prussia,
Farsi language, 24, 90, 194, 221, 84,97,113,245
229,275; German, in relation to, Friedrich Wilhelm IV, king of Prussia,
65, 70-71; Sanskrit, in relation 141,146,150
to, 74, 105,223 Frisian language, 123, 149,249
Feuerbach, Anselm, 178 Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft) 14
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 18, 50-53, Fuhrmann, Manfred, 165
55, 168,250,254; "Concerning Fundgraben des Orients) 84
the Faculty of Speech and the Furst, Julius, 95, 104, 108, 223
Origin of Language," 50-51; Future of Science (Renan), 1
German nationhood, 113; lan-
guage as idea, 51-52, 54, 62 Gardt, Andreas,S
Finnish language, 231, 257 Geiger, Lazarus, 220
Flemish language, 150 genealogy, 262, 274, 279, 293; as
folklore and folklife, 120, 143 historical practice, 11,243,259,
Formigari, Lia, 20, 50 265-66,269,282; languages, as
Foster, Georg, 72 applied to, 10,45,70,79,192,
Foucault, Michel,S, 20, 242, 290, 200,230,231; national, 11, 12,
292-94; on comparative philol- 67,206,289
ogy, 18-19, 303; on death of Genealogy of Morals (Nietzsche),
man, 19,292,295; on language, 265-67
19; and Nietzsche, 19,265,293; General History and Comparative Sys-
Order of Things) 18-19,265, tem of the Semitic Languages
292-93, 294; and poststructural- (Renan), 224, 226
ism, 282, 293 General History of the North
Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (Schlozer),68
(Chamberlain), 286-87 Gene~s, 10, 12,21,66,67
Fragments on Recent German Litera- Geneva, 271, 275,277, 284
ture (Herder), 33, 40, 45 Georgia, 65, 73
404
INDEX
Gerber, Gustav, 60, 263 Gospel History Critically and Philo-
German Confederation, 15, 128, 141, sophically Treated (Weisse), 99
147 Gospel ofJohn, 10,21
German Dictionary (Grimm), Gothic language, 118, 125, 126, 141,
139-40, 144, 146, 147 152; Germanic languages,
German Empire, 4,17,18,157, within, 122, 123, 145, 149
249-51 Goths, 70, 87, 141, 148, 149, 189
German Grammar (Grimm), 119, G6ttingen, University ot~ 61, 118,
122-26, 128, 135, 147, 148 145; appointments to, 35, 121,
German language, Middle High, 116, 184; students at, 96, 105, 178,
11~, 122, 123, 152 206
German language, New High, 14, 15, G6ttingen Seven, 98, 146, 147
68; dialects, in relation to, 102, Gottsched, Johann Christoph, 118
136, 141; Farsi, in relation to, Grafton, Anthony, 7
70, 74, 90; historicized, 123, grammar, 14,71,171,175,226-27,
125-26, 139; nationality, as 268; comparative, 54, 75, 76-83,
marker of~ 103, 114-15, 155, 152, 191,235,283; general, 16,
245 21,56,134,164,168,176; his-
German language, Old, 117, 120, torical, 114, 118, 119-27, 134,
122, 152; Germanic languages, 222,274; philosophical, 53, ll8,
within, 123, 154, 156; histori- 161, 164-65,222; universal or
cized, 124-25, 134-35, 138, rational, 50, 53, 56, 164, 172,
155 192, 195
German Language Association, 250 Grammar, Logic, and Psychology
German Legal Antiquities (Grimm), (Steinthal),254-55
126 Grammar of the Icelandic or Old
German Mythology (Grimm), 144, Norse Tongue (Rask), 122
146 Greece, 24,149; and Bavarian House
German philology, 190; and compara- ofWitteisbach, 181-82; German
tive philology, 119, 152-53; national identification with
institutionalization of~ 115, ancient, 165-69, 171, 181, 189,
116-19,137,140,152-53,157; 190; origins of, 177-79, 182,
and nationalism, 115, 137, 141, 184-87; War ofIndependence,
145-46, 147, 153-54, 156-57 143, 162, 177, 180-81
Germanic sound shifts, 124-26, 148, Greek language, 83, 105, 170, 223;
154, 155,210,237 Attic dialect, 171, 188, 194,
Germanic tribes, 74, 84, 87, 120, 335n54; German, as related to,
135, 144, 149, 189,285 161, 168-69, 187; as ideal lan-
Germanics. See German philology guage, 17,62,119, 160, 161,
Gerratana, Federico, 259 164-65, 168-69, 184, 188, 196;
Gesenius, Wilhelm, 83, 96-97, 98, Indo-European languages,
100, 104, 108,223 within, 71, 74,184,187-89,
Gobineau, Arthur Comte de, 197-98, 191,194; New Testament
204,210-11 (Koine), 3,101, 171,194-96;
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 72 philology, centrality to, 61, 62,
G6rres, Joseph von, 77, 117, 186 80, 140, 157
405
INDEX
406
INDEX
guage and study of culture, 43, Hobsbawn, Eric J., 249
45, 163; on language and Hoefer, Albert, 152-53
thought, 40--41, 44--45, 46, Holstein, 147
48--49,243,258,260,263; Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, 99
Metakritik, 47,53,61; and Holy Roman Empire, 3, 15, 120,
Michaelis, 30, 33, 34, 40--41; 132, 167
nationalism, as associated with, humanism, 2, 7, 8, 9, 14,291-92
17,286,289; and philology as humanities, language as methodology
discipline, 61-62, 224 in,4,6,7,270,281-82,290
Hermann, Gottfried, 164-65, 170, Humboldt, Alexander von, 24
171,177,178,213; on lan- Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 54-61, 92,
guage, 174-75, 187-88, 192, 176,198,206,284,289;on
195 autonomy of language, 54-55;
hermeneutics, 6, 7 on classification of languages,
Herodotus, 177, 179, 186 59-60, 94, 230; and comparative
Hess, Jonathan, 33 philology, 23-24, 61, 62, 63, 77,
Heyne, Christian Gottlob, 7, 24, 61, 80,81,224; on Greek language
81, 159, 162, 166 and neohumanism, 166-68,
Heyse, Carl Wilhelm Ludwig, 253 169-70, 178; on language and
Himalayan Mountains, 87, 93 nationality, 56-59; on language
historicism, 7, 12, 20, 235, 239, 285, and thought, 6, 21, 54, 55,
286, 287; in classical studies, 56-59,263; on Semitic and
171-73; crisis of linguistic, Indo-European languages, 109;
238-39,241--42,269-70,272 and Steinthal, 243, 251-53
historicization of language, 10, 20, Hume, David, 37
28, 63, 77, 277; and autonomy Hundt, Markus, 13
oflanguage, 6,19,21,44,58; Hungarian language, 68
and biblical criticism, 3,9,67, Hungary, 142
194-96; German, 114-27, Hutton, Christopher, 288, 304n14
132-35; Hebrew, 95-101,195;
New Testament Greek, 3, Iceland and Icelandic language, 68,
194-96 122, 145
History and Antiquities of the Doric idealism, German, 25, 46, 50-53, 54,
Race (Miiller), 186-87 60,204,254
History of the Fall of the Free Greek Ideas on the Philosophical History of
States (Humboldt), 167-68 Mankind (Herder), 44, 45, 48
History of the German Language imperialism, 66, 180, 181, 184,
(Grimm), 147-50,216 200-201,346nI27
History of the Goths (Jordanes), 114 Incas, 71
History ofGreck Literature (K.O. India, 88, 92,119,160,201,214,
Miiller), 188-89 219; as German homeland,
History of the Hebrew Language 74-76, 84, 87; Romantic long-
(Gesenius), 96 ing for, 72-73, 276; two-race
History of Israel (Ewald), 98 theory of, 202-3, 213-15, 266
Hittite language, 271 Indian Antiquities (Lassen), 203, 227
Hobbes, Thomas, 8 Indische Bibliothek, 202
407
INDEX
408
INDEX
Lacan, Jacques, 291 125, 191; philology, centrality to,
Lachmann, Karl, 118, 130, 191,230 45,61,62,140,157; prestige of,
Lagarde, Paul Anton de, 209 14,81,118,134,160
Langles, Louis-Mathieu, 77 "Latium and Hellas: Observations on
language: autonomy of (see autonomy classical Antiquity" (Humboldt),
oflanguage); and biblical criti- 166-67, 169-70
cism (see biblical criticism); and Law Rook of Manu, 72
the body, 151, 204-6, 208, Lazarus, Moritz, 60, 243, 244--48,
209-10,228-29,236-38,256; 253,256,263,275
classification of (see classification Le Hir, Arthur-Marie, 223
oflanguages); gendering of, Lectures on the Philosophy of History
138--40; historicization of (see (Hegel), 230
historicization oflanguage); ori- Lectures on Universal History (F.
gin of (see origin of language); Schlegel), 75
and race (see race and language); Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 14,
standardization of (see standard- 67-68, 304nnl0-11; on lan-
ization of language); trans- guage and thought, 26-27, 29
parency of (see transparency of Leipzig, University of, 14, 147,236;
language) appointments to, 164, 191; stu-
language and nationhood, 4-5, 12, dents at, 178, 241, 259, 270,
25, 34, 249-50, 256-57; in 271
comparative philology, 23-25, Leskien, August, 271, 273
66,69-70,109,187,188-89; Letter to Chevalier Bunsen on the Clas-
discursive relationship, as a, 245, sification of the Turanian Lan-
247--48, 249; in German philol- guages (Max Miiller), 215
ogy, 113-16, 151; Hamann, Leventhal, Robert S., 61
Herder, Humboldt on, 23-25, Levi-Strauss, Claude, 242, 270, 282,
38--41,44--45,56-59 290,291-92
language and thought, 23-25, 55--60, lexicography and lexica, 14,45,
243, 258-60, 263-69; among 69-70, 71, 143--44
Kantians, 46-53, 216-17; sign liberalism, 146, 153, 157, 177,211,
systems, in relation to, 26-30, 244,249,289; and philology,
31-34,280,292 153,206,211,229,250,251
Language as Art (Gerber), 263 liberal nationalism and philology, 105,
langue, 258, 274, 277-78 115, 120, 163, 184
Lassen, Christian, 83, 191,214,220; Life and Growth of Language (Whit-
on Aryans and Semites, 198, ney),273
203--4; and Burnouf, 222; and Life ofJesus (Renan), 221
Renan,203,227,347nI68;on Light from the Orient (Frank), 72
two-race theory of India, 203 linguistic agency. See agency, linguistic
Latham, Robert, 219 linguistic determinism, 5, 21, 199,
Latin language, 104-5, 160,223, 211,212,228,268,281
275; antiquity, in study of, 145, linguistic nationalism, 4,5, 15, 18,
155, 164; German, as distant 24, 128, 130, 142--45, 299. See
from, 113,161,168; Indo-Euro- also language and nationhood
pean languages, within, 71, 74, linguistic relativity, 21, 28, 54
409
INDEX
linguistics, 10, 236-39; and classical Max Muller, Friedrich, 72, 211-18,
philology, 176; critique of Ger- 223, 233-34,272,297n9,
man, 272-76, 283; diachronic, 319n125; on Aryans and
274,279; general, 192,239, Semites, 198,214-18,219,221,
277, 283, 287; and German 228; on language and religion,
philology, 3, 152, 156,277; 217-18; on language and
instutionalization of, 156, 157, thought, 216-17, 280; on philol-
197,199,206,229,277-78, ogy and ethnology, 212, 214-16;
287; national philologies, in rela- on polytheism, original, 218; on
tion to, 67, 76,152-53,156, race and language, 214-16, 224;
200,206,229,287; as a natural and Renan,217,218,228;on
science, 154,228,233-34,259; Turanian languages, 213; on
synchronic, 239, 243, 269, 270, two-race theory ofIndia, 214
272,274,279,285,287; turn to Maxmillian I, king of Bavaria, 178,
structuralism in, 236, 239, 181
269-81,283-84 meaning and language, 8,11,21,33,
"linguistic turn," 5,12,19,47,282, 277,278,281,282
300n28 Meillet, Antoine, 176,283,290
Link, Heinrich Friedrich, 73 Meinecke, Friedrich, 251
Lithuania and Lithuanian language, Meinhof, Carl, 235
219,229,275 Memoir on the Primitive System of
Lobeck, Christian August, 170, 177 Vowels in the Indo-European Lan-
Locke, John, 16,29, 33, 57,279; on guages (Saussure), 271-72
language and thought, 8, 26-28, Mende languages, 257
304nn9, 13, 15, 17 Mende- Negro Languages (Steinthal),
London,2,35, 80, 90, 170,229 257
London Times, 100 Metacritique of the Critique of Pure
Luden, Heinrich, 114 Reason (Herder), 48
Ludwig I, king of Bavaria, 80, 143, Metakritik, 47-49,52,260,263
146,178,181 Metternich, Klemens von, 15, 73,
Luther, Martin, 13, 139, 141, 144 141,142,180
Michaelis, Johann David, 30-33, 206,
Macaulay, Thomas Babington, 72 305n40; and Hamann, 30, 33,
Madvig, Johann Nicolai, 176 34-36, 39; and Herder, 30, 33,
Mahabharata, 77, 80 34,40-41
Maimon, Solomon, 47, 49 Michelis, Enrico de, 221
Majer, Friedrich, 72 Mithridates (Adelung), 222
Maltese language, 96 Mohl, Julius, 221
Manchester, Martin, 60 Mongolia and Mongolian language,
Mann, Thomas, 244 89,91,92,257,318nl11
Marchand, Suzanne L., 101,285 monogenesis, 67, 83, 95,104,111
Markley, Robert, 8 monotheism, 2,199,218,221,
MaBmann, Hans Ferdinand, 117, 227-28,244,254
137, 143 Mosse, George, 17, 359n25
Maupertuis, Piern:-Loub Moreau de, mother tongue, 10; in domestic con-
30,31,41 texts, 139-40; as indicative of
410
INDEX
nationality, 13,43,44,248-49, 238-39,280; and Saussure, 241,
288-89 242,270,271,277; on speakers,
MuUenhoff, Karl, 153 236-39; Volksgeist, disregard for,
Muller, Friedrich, 210 236,238
Muller, Karl Otfried, 98, 105, 162, neohumanism, 17, 117, 155, 162,
177,184-89,191,196,206; 165-70, 178, 180-82, 190
and comparative philology, 184, neo-Romanticism,285
187-88; on Greek origins, 177, Neumann, Friedrich, 93-94
184, 185-87; History and Antiq- New Testament Greek. See Greek lan-
uities of the Doric Race, 186-87; guage: New Testament (Koine)
History of Greek Literature, N ibelungenlied, 116-18, 153
188-89; on language and nation- Niehbuhr, Barthold Georg, 98, 173
ality, 186, 188-89 Niethammer, Friedrich Immanuel,
Munich, 89,130,142,146 168, 178
music and language, 261-62 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 3, 7, 11,21,
Myanmar, 71 193,258-69,281-82; Birth of
mythology, 72, 77, 120-21, 145, Tragedy, 261-62; and compara-
227,244; comparative, 73, 74, tive philology, 258-59; and Fou-
2]7-]8 cault, 19,265,293; and geneal-
ogy, 265-66, 269; Genealogy of
Nala and Damayanti, 80 Morals, 265-67; on language and
Napoleon, 3, 113, 131, 178,222 subjectivity, 261, 266-69; on
nationalism, German, 3-4, 16, 34, language and thought, 259, 260,
114, 137-38, 153, 163,286; 263-69; on language and the
and German philology, 115, 137, unconscious, 251, 260,261,
140-41, 145-46, 147, 153-54, 269; legacy, 284, 287, 289, 290,
156-57; and language, 4, 13, 295; on music and language,
116-17,131-32,140-41,147, 261-62; "On Truth and Lying,"
249-51; and origins, 11, 263-65; on origin oflanguage,
113-16,126,251; political man- 260, 263; on representation and
ifestations of, 73, 117, 128, 146; language, 261, 262, 264; and
vii/kisch, 17,245,249-51,284, Saussure, 241-42, 270, 281-82;
289 and Steinthal, 258, 259, 260,
national origins, German. See origins, 263
German national Nordic languages, 122, 123, 145,
National Socialism, 287,288,290 149, 155
Native American languages, 24, 75, Norse, Old, language, 117
211,257 Novalis, 52, 120
Nazi Germany. See Third Reich
Neogrammarians (Neugrammatiker), occupation, Napoleonic, 114, 119,
156, 236-39,251, 273, 286;cri- 165, 178
tique of, 192,277, 288; explana- Old Testament, 8, 9, 21,33,95-101,
tions for linguistic change, 194-96. See also biblical criticism
236-38; and historicism, crisis of Olender, Maurice, 3, 101, 110, 199,
linguistic, 200, 238-39, 270; and 228
psychology in linguistics, 236, On Dogmatics (Rothe), 194
411
INDEX
412
INDEX
History (Bunsen), 214 (Steinthal), 259
Philosophy of Art (Schelling), 51
Pahlavi language, 222 Philosophy of the Unconscious (Hart-
pan-Germanism, 18, 146, 149-50, mann), 260
250 physiology, 205, 208, 209-10, 280;
Pantschatantra (Benfey), 105-7 sound shifts, as explanation for,
Paris, 77,81,84,94,100,229,254, 155,156,229,233-34,236-38
275,290 Pictet, Adolphe, 209, 216, 220, 223,
Paris, Gaston, 275 271
Park, Peter K. J., 80 Pietism, 21,35-38,40, 194
parole, 258, 274-75, 277 Plato, 8, 12, 46
Pashto language, 90 Poliakov, Leon, 17, 340n6
Passow, Friedrich, 168, 169 Polish language, 15,245,249
Paul, Hermann, 156,236,237-39, polygenesis, 75, 87, 96, 108
243, 244, 270; and critique of polytheism, 218, 244
German linguistics, 272, 274-75 poststructuralism, 5,6, 19,21,242,
Penka, Karl, 210 282,290,293
Pentateuch, 10, 16,71,96,97,98 Potocki, Jan, 89
Perconti, Pietro, 49 Pott, August Friedrich, 83, 88, 176,
Persian Empire, 89, 107, 185. See also 200-201, 204-11, 220; and
Iran Gobineau, 197-98,210-11; and
Persian language. See Farsi language linguistics as discipline, 108, 160,
Peter I, czar of Russia, 68 206; and physiology, 208, 210;
Pfeiffer, Franz, 153 on race and language, 197-98,
Pfister-Schwaighusen, Hermann von, 210-11
250 Prague, 191,229,284,285,286
philology, 1-3,4,7, 14,21; biblical, Prichard, James Cowles, 212
9,32-33 (see also biblical criti- Principles of General Grammar
cism); classical, 61-62 (see also (Sacy), 222
classical studies); comparative- Principles of the General Linguistic
historical (see comparative-histori- Type (Humboldt), 56, 57
cal philology); emergence as a Principles of Greek Etymology (Cur-
discipline, 17,45-46,61-63,89, tius),241
115-19,137,140,152-53,157; Principles of the History of Language
and ethnology, 45, 212, 214-16, (Paul), 239, 270, 274
224; German (see German philol- Prolegomena ad Homerum (Wolf),
ogy); linguistics, as distinct from, 118
67,76,152-53,156,200,206, Proto-Germanic language, 125, 149,
229,287; and nationhood, 154, 155, 156, 325n44
13-14, 16, 18 (see also language Proto-Indo-European language, 71,
and nationhood); and origins, 125, 220,225, 230, 298n13;
11, 12, 16 (see also origin research on, 107,231,237,242,
paradigm); Semitic (see Semitic 271
languages); and theology, 3, 9, Prussia, 24, 31, 35,135,146,245;
11,61,67,103-4,229,259 language policies of, 245, 249;
Philology, History, and Psychology and nationalist movement, 115,
413
INDEX
414
INDEX
runes, 141, 145,250 141,145,150
Russian Empire, 15,68,119; and Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph,
German Orientalists, 66, 88-92, 51,77,168
317; and imperial expansion, 66, Scherer, Josef, 132
89, 184 Scherer, Wilhelm, 152, 153-57; and
Neogrammarians, 156, 237
Sachphilologen. See classical studies: Schiller, Friedrich, 72, 146, 159
"realists" and "verbalists" Schlegel, August Wilhelm, 54, 58,81,
Sachsen-Meiningen, Georg von, 229 108,110,121,122,191; and
Sacy, Antoine-Isaac Silvestre de, 77, Bopp, 81, 83; and comparative
222 grammar, 54, 83; on rwo-race
Said, Edward, 17, 66 theory of India, 202
Sakuntala, 72 Schlegel, Friedrich, 19,73-76,77,
Sama Veda, 105 119,120-21,159-60,184; on
Samaritan language, 96, 100 Aryans and Semites, 198,200,
Sanskrit Grammar (Whitney), 272 201-2; and Bopp, 79,80;on
Sanskrit language, 13,52, 59, 70, 72, classification of languages, 94,
92,169,188,217,219;and 103, 108-9, 122; Essay on the
comparative-historical philology, Language and Wisdom of the
119, 148, 152, 160,229; Indians, 73-76, 222; on India,
Hebrew, in relation to, 75, 109, 73-76; on inflection, 59, 75; on
212; Indo-European languages, origin of German nation, 74-76,
within, 46, 71, 77, 79-82, 87, 84,87,228
111,122,125,152,222-23; Schleicher, August, 105, 191,209,
studied,24, 105, 170, 187,221, 220,228-35,237,272, 276; on
229,271,276; Ursprache, as, 83, autonomy oflanguage, 229,
201 232-33, 235, 242; disregard for
Sapir, Edward, 54 speaker, 232-34, 235; on family
Sartre, Jean Paul, 291-92 tree model, 231; and Hegelian
Sauer, August, 285 philosophy, 230; on history of
Saussure, Ferdinand de, 21, 176, 191, language, 230-31; and linguistics
239,258,269-75,277-82; as a discipline, 199,229,230,
autonomy of language, implica- 244; and materialism, 234
tions for, 280; and German lin- Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 48, 114,
guistic tradition, 3, 7, 269-72; 194,300n28
on language and thought, 280; Schleswig, 147,245
legacy, 284-85, 287, 289, SchlOzer, August Ludwig von, 68-69
290-91; and Nietzsche, 241-42, SchmeIler, Johann Andreas: on
270,281-82; on referentiality of dialects, 131; and discursive com-
signs, 278-79; on subjectivity, munity, 136-37; on historiciza-
280-81 tion of language, 132-34; on
Savage Mind (Levi-Strauss), 291-92 nationhood, south German lin-
Savigny, Friedrich Karl von, 120 guistic, 115, 130, 142-43; politi-
Saxon languages, 122, 123,249 cal views, 130, 131-32, 136,
Saxony, 135, 145 142, 150; and spoken word,
Scandinavia, 74, 87,114,119,128, 131-32
415
INDEX
Schmidt, Isaac Jacob, 88, 91-93 speakers, role in language, 11, 12,25,
Schmidt, Johannes, 231, 232 42,277; asserted, 8, 27, 235,
Schneckenburger, Max, 146 272-73, 279-80, 283; dismissed,
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 261 19,151,232-34,269-70,277,
Schott, Wilhelm, 93-94 279,292; and psychology,
Schottelius, Justus Georg, 13, 14 236-39,242-43,275
Schraeder, Eberhard, 100 speech and speech acts, 8, 10, II,
Schulpforta, 178, 259 131,237,277
Science of Language (Max Muller), Sprachwissenschaft. See linguistics
233 St. Petersburg, 65, 84, 90, 92, 94
Science of Thought (Max Muller), 217 Stadler, Franz Josef~ 132
Scientific Revolution, 8 Starn, James, 51
Search for a New Theory of the Human Stammbaum. See family tree
Representational Faculty (Rein- standardization oflanguage, 5, 8, 13;
hold), 50 New High German, 14, U8,
Sechehaye, Albert, 272 127,128,136,141,249
semiotics, 27-29, 33,41,61,270, Stein, Karl vom, 166
281 Steinthal, Heymann, 60, 243,
Semitic languages, 1,2, 152, 184, 244-46, 247-48, 275; on auton-
189,194,257; historicized, 67, omy oflanguage, 253, 257-58;
95-101,235; Indo-European on Humboldt, 251-53; on lan-
languages, in relation to, 17, 71, guage and nationhood, 256-57;
83,95-96,102-12,209,220, on language and thought,
225-26; Renan on, 223, 224, 251-58; on language and the
225-27 unconscious, 253-56, 280; and
Sheehan, Jonathan, 9 Nietzsche, 259, 260, 263; and
Shem, 12, 67 psychology, 251-58
signs, language as system ot~ 61, 149, Stocker, Alfred, 248
164, 176,276; and agency of Stocking, George, 216
speaker, 16, 116,270,273, Strasbourg, University of, 156
278-79, 289; and expressive the- Strauss, David Friedrich, 221
ory of language, 6, 42; and rep- structuralism, 5, 242, 270, 277,
resentation, 8, 21, 46; and 281-82,283-84,285,290-92
thought, 27-30, 32,52,175 structuralist linguistics, 176,239,
Sinology, 92-94 244,269,277,290-91
Sinti and Roma, 209 subjectivity and the subject,S, 6, 12,
Skinner, Quentin, 8 30; language and the construc-
Slavic languages, 70, 229 tion of, 43, 58, 292-94; linguis-
Smith, George, 100 tic critique of, 19-21,47,63,
Societe asiatique de Paris, 222 242,243,258,282,290;~
Societe linguistique de Paris, 275 structuralism, 270, 277, 282,
soul, in relation to language, 40-45, 291-92
253-56,258,268 SuBmilch, Johann Peter, 41, 42
sound change, 130, 133, 152, Sumerian language, 101
236-38,279, 325n42 Susu language, 257
Spain, 24, 149 Swabian dialect, 128, 132
416
INDEX
Swedish language, 128, 135, 150 Trautmann, Thomas, 17,67,215
Symbolism and Mythology of the Treatise 01'1 the Grammar of New Tes-
Ancient Peoples (Creuzer), 177 tament Greek (Winer), 195
synchronic linguistics. See linguistics: Treatise on the Mechanical Formation
synchronic of Language (Brosse), 205
Synoptic Gospels: Their Origin and Trubetzkoy, Nikolai, 286
Historical Character (Hotz- Turanian languages, 213, 216
mann),99 Turkish language, 37, 70, 88, 91,
Syria and Syrian language, 70, 107 221-22,231,257
Syriac language, 9, 10, 81, 96, 100, Twilight of the Idols (Nietzsche), 267
221 Tychsen, Thomas Christian, 90, 96
typology of languages. See classifica-
Tacitus, 114, 202, 209 tion of language
Tartar language, 94 Tyrol, 132, 142
Taylor, Charles, 20, 43
Taylor, Talbot J., 27 Uighurs,91
Thai language, 93 Umlaut. See vowel modifications
theology: and autonomous language, unification, German, 15, 18, 157,
21,63; and philology as disci- 243,244,258
pline, 3,9,61,67, 103-4,229, United States of America, 147,272,
259. See also biblical criticism 283,285
Theory of Language (Bernhardi), 53, university as institution, 14, 15, 137,
56 140, 180,285; and philology, 7,
Thiersch, Friedrich, 105, 162, 62, 166
177-82,185,190; Bavarian Urbild, 161, 168
state, relationship to, 178, 181; Urform,4, 11, 108,231
on Greek origins, 177-79, 182; Urheimat, 66, 74, 77, 84, 88, 220,
travels to Greect:, 181-82, 337 286. See also Indo-European
Third Reich, 17, 18,285,286,288, homeland
340n6 Urmythus, 120
Thirty Years War, 13,67 Ursprache, 10,51,74,85, Ill, 122,
Thomasius, Christian, 14 262, 298n13; and Germanic lan-
Thorpe, Benjamin, 213 guages, 120, 145,250; and
Thrace, 148, 149 Indo-European languages, 3, 77,
Tibet and Tibetan language, 37,91, 210,231; national tongues as,
92,254 14,72,83,95, 161
Tieck, Ludwig, 120 UrverwandtschaJt, 220. See also Indo-
Tieck, Sophie, 53 European languages: Semitic lan-
Timpanaro, Sebastiano, 230 guages, in relation to
Toews, John E., 10, 12, 121, 126, Urvolk, 113-16, 127, 128, 137,216,
146,148,151 250
Tooke, Horne, 72 Uvarov, Sergei, 89
Toury, Jacob, 102
Townson, Michael,S Vai language, 257
transparency oflanguage, 5, 9, 19, Venice, 142
25,26,295 vernacular, 5, 8, 13-14, 127, 128,
417
INDEX
131-36,237 270-71,277,278
Verner, Karl, 236, 271 Whorf, Benjamin Lee, 54
Viehmann, Katerina, 139 Wilhelm I, kaiser of Germany, 98,
Vienna, 152, 153,229 154
Vietnamese language, 93 Wilhelm II, kaiser of Germany, 100,
Virchow, Rudolf, 219, 220 157
Vogt, Carl, 210 Wilhelmine Germany, 17, 18,
Volkerpsychologie, 243, 244, 246-47, 249-51,289
275 Wilkens, Charles, 80
Volksgeist, 25, 40, 244, 246, 285, Wilkens, John, 8
289; language, detached from, Williamson, George S., 4,177,184
236,238,242,284 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim, 77,
Volkskunde, 285, 287. See also folk/ore 165, 184
and folkJife Windisch, Ernst, 191
Volney Prize, 105,223,254 Windischmann, Karl Josias, 209
Vormiirz, 4, 140, 157 Winer, Georg Benedikt, 195
Vossler, Karl, 287 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 5,290
vowel modifications, 122, 123-24, Wolf, Friedrich August, 118, 162,
134,271,325n41 163-64, 173; and philology,
institutionalization of, 7, 159,
Wackenroder, Wilhelm Heinrich, 120 166,176; students uf, 53, 162,
Wagner, Richard, 18,210,262 172
Walhalla, 143 Wolff, Christian, 37
Wallerstein, Fanny, 105 words and things, relationship
War of Independence. See Greece: between, 126, 148. See also refer-
War of Independence entiality of language
Wars of Liberation, 117, 128, 131, World War I, 9, 283, 285,286,288,
166 290
Wartburg Festival, 137 Wortphilologen. See classical studies:
Weber, Albrecht, 191,276 "realists" and "verbalists"
Weigand, Friedrich Ludwig Karl, 152 Wallner, Franz, 95
We iller, Cajetan, 130 Wundt, Wilhelm, 244, 271
Weimar Republic, 3, 285
Weisberger, Leo, 289 Yiddish, 102-3, 195,249,288
Weisse, Hermann, 99 Young, Thomas, 200
Welcker, Friedrich Gottlieb, 162, 16~, Ypsilanti, Alexander, 180
190,191,229
Wellshausen, Julius, 99-100, 195 Zeitschrift fur Viilkerpsychologie und
Wette, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de, Sprachwissenschaft, 244, 246
97 Zend-AJ7t:sta, 201, 222, 223
Whitney, William Dwight, 272-73, Zoroastrian books and Zoroastrian-
283; critique of German philol- ism, 72,105,201,223
ogy, 235, 276; and Saussure,
418